Environmental impact of meat production

The environmental impacts of animal agriculture vary because of the wide variety of agricultural practices employed around the world. Despite this, all agricultural practices have been found to have a variety of effects on the environment to some extent. Animal agriculture, in particular meat production, can cause pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, disease, and significant (consumption of land), food, and water. Meat is obtained through a variety of methods, including organic farming, free-range farming, intensive livestock production, and subsistence agriculture. The livestock sector also includes wool, egg and dairy production, the livestock used for tillage, and fish farming.

Examples of environmental impacts of animal agriculture: Meat production is a main driver of deforestation in Venezuela; Pigs in intensive farming; Testing (Australian sheep) for exhaled methane production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture; Farms often pump their animal waste directly into a large lagoon, which has environmental consequences.

Animal agriculture is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Cows, sheep, and other ruminants digest their food by enteric fermentation, and their (burps) are the main source of methane emissions from land use, land-use change, and forestry. Together with methane and nitrous oxide from manure, this makes livestock the main source of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. A significant reduction in meat consumption is essential to mitigate climate change, especially as the human population increases by a projected 2.3 billion by the middle of the century.

Consumption and production trends

Total annual meat consumption by type of meat

Cereal-use statistic show an estimated large fraction of crops used as fodder

Nutritional value and environmental impact of animal products, compared to agriculture overall

Categories	Contribution of farmed animal product [%]
Calories	18
Proteins	37
Land use	83
Greenhouse gases	58
Water pollution	57
Air pollution	56
(Freshwater withdrawals)	33

Multiple studies have found that increases in meat consumption are currently associated with human population growth and rising individual incomes or GDP, and therefore, the environmental impacts of meat production and consumption will increase unless current behaviours change.

Changes in demand for meat will influence how much is produced, thus changing the environmental impact of meat production. It has been estimated that global meat consumption may double from 2000 to 2050, mostly as a consequence of the increasing world population, but also partly because of increased per capita meat consumption (with much of the per capita consumption increase occurring in the developing world). The human population is projected to grow to 9 billion by 2050, and meat production is expected to increase by 40%. Global production and consumption of poultry meat have been growing recently at more than 5% annually. Meat consumption typically increases as people and countries get richer. Trends also vary among livestock sectors. For example, global pork consumption per capita has increased recently (almost entirely due to changes in consumption within China), while global consumption per capita of ruminant meats has been declining.

Per capita annual meat consumption by region

Total annual meat consumption by region

Resource use

Food production efficiency

About 85% of the world's soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed. Approximately 6% of soybeans are used directly as human food, mostly in Asia.

For every 100 kilograms of food made for humans from crops, 37 kilograms byproducts unsuitable for direct human consumption are generated. Many countries then repurpose these human-inedible crop byproducts as livestock feed for cattle. Raising animals for human consumption accounts for approximately 40% of total agricultural output in industrialized nations. Moreover, the efficiency of meat production varies depending on the specific production system, as well as the type of feed. It may require anywhere from 0.9 and 7.9 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of beef, between 0.1 to 4.3 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of pork, and 0 to 3.5 kilograms of grains to produce 1 kilogram of chicken.

Field of crops for animal consumption. These fields occupy a large amount of land. This limits the land available for local people to grow crops for their own consumption.

FAO estimates, however, that about 2 thirds of the pasture area used by livestock is not convertible to crop-land.

Major corporations purchase land in different developing nations in Latin America and Asia to support large-scale production of animal feed crops, mainly corn and soybeans. This practice reduces the amount of land available for growing crops that are fit for human consumption in these countries, putting the local population at risk of food security.

According to a study conducted in Jiangsu, China, individuals with higher incomes tend to consume more food than those with lower incomes and larger families. Consequently, it is unlikely that those employed in animal feed production in these regions do not consume the animals that eat the crops they produce. The lack of space for growing crops for consumption, coupled with the need to feed larger families, only exacerbates their food insecurity.

According to FAO, crop-residues and by-products account for 24% of the total dry matter intake of the global livestock sector. A 2018 study found that, "Currently, 70% of the feedstock used in the Dutch feed industry originates from the food processing industry." Examples of grain-based waste conversion in the United States include feeding livestock the distillers grains (with solubles) remaining from ethanol production. For the marketing year 2009–2010, dried distillers grains used as livestock feed (and residual) in the US was estimated at 25.5 million metric tons. Examples of waste roughages include straw from barley and wheat crops (edible especially to large-ruminant breeding stock when on maintenance diets), and corn stover.

Land use

Mean land use of different foods

Food Types	Land Use (m^2year per 100g protein)
Lamb and mutton	185
Beef	164
Cheese	41
Pork	11
Poultry	7.1
Eggs	5.7
Farmed fish	3.7
Groundnuts	3.5
Peas	3.4
Tofu	2.2

Permanent meadows and pastures, grazed or not, occupy 26% of the Earth's ice-free terrestrial surface. Feed crop production uses about one-third of all arable land. More than one-third of U.S. land is used for pasture, making it the largest land-use type in the contiguous United States.

The amount of globally needed agricultural land would be reduced by almost half if no beef or mutton would be eaten.

In many countries, livestock graze from the land which mostly cannot be used for growing human-edible crops, as seen by the fact that there is three times as much agricultural land as arable land.

A 2023 study found that a vegan diet reduced land use by 75%.

Free-range animal production, particularly beef production, has also caused tropical deforestation because it requires land for grazing. The livestock sector is also the primary driver of deforestation in the Amazon, with around 80% of all deforested land being used for cattle farming. Additionally, 91% of deforested land since 1970 has been used for cattle farming. Research has argued that a shift to meat-free diets could provide a safe option to feed a growing population without further deforestation, and for different yields scenarios. However, according to FAO, grazing livestock in drylands “removes vegetation, including dry and flammable plants, and mobilizes stored biomass through depositions, which is partly transferred to the soil, improving fertility. Livestock is key to creating and maintaining specific habitats and green infrastructures, providing resources for other species and dispersing seeds”.

Water use

Globally, the amount of water used for agricultural purposes exceeds any other industrialized purpose of water consumption. About 80% of water resources globally are used for agricultural ecosystems. In developed countries, up to 60% of total water consumption can be used for irrigation; in developing countries, it can be up to 90%, depending on the region's economic status and climate. According to the projected increase in food production by 2050, water consumption would need to increase by 53% to satisfy the world population's demands for meat and agricultural production.

Groundwater depletion is a concern in some areas because of sustainability issues (and in some cases, land subsidence and/or saltwater intrusion). A particularly important North American example of depletion is the High Plains (Ogallala) Aquifer, which underlies about 174,000 square miles in parts of eight states of the USA and supplies 30 percent of the groundwater withdrawn for irrigation there. Some irrigated livestock feed production is not hydrologically sustainable in the long run because of aquifer depletion. Rainfed agriculture, which cannot deplete its water source, produces much of the livestock feed in North America. Corn (maize) is of particular interest, accounting for about 91.8% of the grain fed to US livestock and poultry in 2010.^{: table 1–75} About 14 percent of US corn-for-grain land is irrigated, accounting for about 17% of US corn-for-grain production and 13% of US irrigation water use, but only about 40% of US corn grain is fed to US livestock and poultry.^{: table 1–38} Irrigation accounts for about 37% of US withdrawn freshwater use, and groundwater provides about 42% of US irrigation water. Irrigation water applied in the production of livestock feed and forage has been estimated to account for about 9 percent of withdrawn freshwater use in the United States.

Almost one-third of the water used in the western United States goes to crops that feed cattle. This is despite the claim that withdrawn surface water and groundwater used for crop irrigation in the US exceeds that for livestock by about a ratio of 60:1. This excessive use of river water distresses ecosystems and communities, and drives scores of species of fish closer to extinction during times of drought.

A 2023 study found that a vegan diet reduced water usage by 54%.

A study in 2019 focused on linkages between water usage and animal agricultural practices in China. The results of the study showed that water resources were being used primarily for animal agriculture; the highest categories were animal husbandry, agriculture, slaughtering and processing of meat, fisheries, and other foods. Together they accounted for the consumption of over 2400 billion m³ embodied water, roughly equating to 40% of total embodied^[] water by the whole system. This means that more than one-third of China's entire water consumption is being used for food processing purposes, and mostly for animal agricultural practices.

Estimated water requirements for various foods

Foodstuff	Litres per
	kilocalorie	gram of protein	kg of foodstuff	gram of fat
Sugar crops	0.69	N/A	197	N/A
Vegetables	1.34	26	322	154
Starchy roots	0.47	31	387	226
Fruits	2.09	180	962	348
Cereals	0.51	21	1644	112
Oil crops	0.81	16	2364	11
Pulses	1.19	19	4055	180
Nuts	3.63	139	9063	47
Milk	1.82	31	1020	33
Eggs	2.29	29	3265	33
Chicken meat	3.00	34	4325	43
Butter	0.72	N/A	5553	6.4
Pig meat	2.15	57	5988	23
Sheep/goat meat	4.25	63	8763	54
Bovine meat	10.19	112	15415	153

Water pollution

Water pollution due to animal waste is a common problem in both developed and developing nations. The USA, Canada, India, Greece, Switzerland and several other countries are experiencing major environmental degradation due to water pollution via animal waste.^{: Table I-1} Concerns about such problems are particularly acute in the case of CAFOs ((concentrated animal feeding operations)). In the US, a permit for a CAFO requires the implementation of a plan for the management of manure nutrients, contaminants, wastewater, etc., as applicable, to meet requirements under the Clean Water Act. There were about 19,000 CAFOs in the US as of 2008. In fiscal 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded 26 enforcement actions for various violations by CAFOs.

A 2023 study found that a vegan diet reduced water pollution by 75%.

A green algae bloom has been observed in Sichuan, China. In normal conditions, river water is transparent, but algae blooms result in green algae covering the surface. This prevents other plants at the bottom of the river from getting sunlight, causing them to lose their ability to photosynthesise. Oxygen levels in rivers fall when there is no other vegetation, resulting in the death of other species.

Effective use of fertilizer is crucial to accelerate the growth of animal feed production, which in turn increases the amount of feed available for livestock. However, excess fertilizer can enter water bodies via runoff after rainfall, resulting in eutrophication. The addition of nitrogen and phosphorus can cause the rapid growth of algae, also known as an algae bloom. The reduction of oxygen and nutrients in the water caused by the growth of algae ultimately leads to the death of other species in the ecosystem. This ecological harm has consequences not only for the native animals in the affected water body but also for the water supply for people.

To dispose of animal waste and other pollutants, animal production farms often spray manure (often contaminated with potentially toxic bacteria) onto empty fields, called "spray-fields", via sprinkler systems. The toxins within these spray-fields oftentimes run into creeks, ponds, lakes, and other bodies of water, contaminating bodies of water. This process has also led to the contamination of drinking water reserves, harming the environment and citizens alike.

Air pollution

Mean acidifying emissions (air pollution) of different foods per 100g of protein

Food Types	Acidifying Emissions (g SO2eq per 100g protein)
Beef	343.6
Cheese	165.5
Pork	142.7
Lamb and Mutton	139.0
Farmed Crustaceans	133.1
Poultry	102.4
Farmed Fish	65.9
Eggs	53.7
Groundnuts	22.6
Peas	8.5
Tofu	6.7

Animal agriculture is a cause of harmful particulate matter pollution in the atmosphere. This type of production chain produces byproducts; endotoxin, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and particulate matter (PM), such as dust, all of which can negatively impact human respiratory health. Furthermore, methane and CO₂—the primary greenhouse gas emissions associated with meat production—have also been associated with respiratory diseases like asthma, bronchitis, and COPD.

A study found that (concentrated animal feeding operations) (CAFOs) could increase perceived asthma-like symptoms for residents within 500 meters. Concentrated hog feeding operations release air pollutants from confinement buildings, manure holding pits, and land application of waste. Air pollutants from these operations have caused acute physical symptoms, such as respiratory illnesses, wheezing, increased breath rate, and irritation of the eyes and nose. That prolonged exposure to airborne animal particulate, such as swine dust, induces a large influx of inflammatory cells into the airways. Those in close proximity to CAFOs could be exposed to elevated levels of these byproducts, which may lead to poor health and respiratory outcomes. Additionally, since CAFOs tend to be located in primarily rural and low-income communities, low-income people are disproportionately affected by these environmental health consequences. [1]

Especially when modified by high temperatures, air pollution can harm all regions, socioeconomic groups, sexes, and age groups. Approximately seven million people die from air pollution exposure every year. Air pollution often exacerbates respiratory disease by permeating into the lung tissue and damaging the lungs.

Despite the wealth of environmental consequences listed above, local US governments tend to support the harmful practices of the animal production industry due to its strong economic benefits. Due to this protective legislature, it is extremely difficult for activists to regulate industry practices and diminish environmental impacts.

Climate change aspects

Energy consumption

Energy efficiency of meat and dairy production

An important aspect of energy use in livestock production is the energy consumption that the animals contribute. Feed Conversion Ratio is an animal's ability to convert feed into meat. The Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) is calculated by taking the energy, protein, or mass input of the feed divided by the output of meat provided by the animal. A lower FCR corresponds with a smaller requirement of feed per meat output, and therefore the animal contributes less GHG emissions. Chickens and pigs usually have a lower FCR compared to ruminants.

Intensification and other changes in the livestock industries influence energy use, emissions, and other environmental effects of meat production.

Manure can also have environmental benefits as a renewable energy source, in digester systems yielding biogas for heating and/or electricity generation. Manure biogas operations can be found in Asia, Europe, North America, and elsewhere. System cost is substantial, relative to US energy values, which may be a deterrent to more widespread use. Additional factors, such as odour control and carbon credits, may improve benefit-to-cost ratios. Manure can be mixed with other organic wastes in anaerobic digesters to take advantage of economies of scale. Digested waste is more uniform in consistency than untreated organic wastes, and can have higher proportions of nutrients that are more available to plants, which enhances the utility of (digestate) as a fertiliser product. This encourages circularity in meat production, which is typically difficult to achieve due to environmental and food safety concerns.

Greenhouse gas emissions

This section is an excerpt from Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture § Livestock.[edit]

Livestock produces the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and demands around 30% of agricultural fresh water needs, while only supplying 18% of the global calorie intake. Animal-derived food plays a larger role in meeting human protein needs, yet is still a minority of supply at 39%, with crops providing the rest.^{: 746–747}

Out of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, only SSP1 offers any realistic possibility of meeting the 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) target. Together with measures like a massive deployment of (green technology), this pathway assumes animal-derived food will play a lower role in the global diets relative to now. As a result, there have been calls for phasing out subsidies currently offered to livestock farmers in many places worldwide, and net zero transition plans now involve limits on total livestock headcounts, including substantial reductions of existing stocks in some countries with extensive animal agriculture sectors like Ireland. Yet, an outright end to human consumption of meat and/or animal products is not currently considered a realistic goal. Therefore, any comprehensive plan of adaptation to effects of climate change, particularly the present and future effects of climate change on agriculture, must also consider livestock.

Livestock activities also contribute disproportionately to land-use effects, since crops such as corn and alfalfa are cultivated in order to feed the animals.

In 2010, enteric fermentation accounted for 43% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from all agricultural activity in the world. The meat from ruminants has a higher carbon equivalent footprint than other meats or vegetarian sources of protein based on a global meta-analysis of lifecycle assessment studies. Small ruminants such as sheep and goats contribute approximately 475 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to GHG emissions, which constitutes around 6.5% of world agriculture sector emissions. Methane production by animals, principally ruminants, makes up an estimated 15-20% global production of methane.

Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from cattle

The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that in 2015 around 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) were due to cattle, but this is uncertain. Another estimate is 12% of global GHG. More recently (Climate Trace) estimates 4.5% directly from cattle in 2022. Reducing methane emissions quickly helps limit climate change.

Beef and lamb have the largest carbon footprint of protein-rich foods.

Estimates by Climate TRACE

Billion tonnes CO2eq (% of total global emissions)	2022	2023
Enteric fermentation cattle feedlot	7.95 (1.76)
Enteric fermentation cattle pasture	8.55 (1.90)
Manure left on pasture cattle	2.91 (0.65)
Manure management cattle feedlot	0.70 (0.16)
Total	20.11 (4.47)

Methane production from cows, and land conversion for grazing and animal feed means beef from dedicated beef herds has a very high carbon footprint.

Gut flora in cattle include methanogens that produce methane as a byproduct of enteric fermentation, which cattle belch out. Additional methane is produced by anaerobic fermentation of manure in (manure lagoons) and other manure storage structures. Manure can also release nitrous oxide. Over 20 years atmospheric methane has 81 times the global warming potential of the same amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

As conditions vary a lot the IPCC would like these taken into account when estimating methane emissions, in other words countries where cattle are significant should use Tier 3 methods in their national greenhouse gas inventories. Although well-managed perennial pastures sequester carbon in the soil, as of 2023^[update]life cycle assessments are required to fully assess pastoral dairy farms in all environments.

Mitigation options

Per capita meat consumption and GDP 1990–2017

Mitigation options for reducing methane emission from livestock include a change in diet, that is consuming less meat and dairy. A significant reduction in meat consumption will be essential to mitigate climate change, especially as the human population increases by a projected 2.3 billion by the middle of the century. A 2019 report in The Lancet recommended that global meat consumption be halved to mitigate climate change. A study quantified climate change mitigation potentials of 'high-income' nations shifting diets – away from meat-consumption – and restoration of the spared land, finding that if these were combined they could "reduce annual agricultural production emissions of high-income nations' diets by 61%".

In addition to reduced consumption, emissions can also be reduced by changes in practice. One study found that shifting compositions of current feeds, production areas, and informed land restoration could enable greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 34–85% annually (612–1,506 megatons CO₂ equivalent per year) without increasing costs or changing diets.

Producers can reduce ruminant enteric fermentation using genetic selection, immunization, rumen defaunation, competition of methanogenic archaea with (acetogens), introduction of methanotrophic bacteria into the rumen, diet modification and grazing management, among others. The principal mitigation strategies identified for reduction of agricultural nitrous oxide emissions are avoiding over-application of (nitrogen fertilizers) and adopting suitable (manure management) practices. Mitigation strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the livestock sector include adopting more efficient production practices to reduce agricultural pressure for deforestation (such as in Latin America), reducing fossil fuel consumption, and increasing carbon sequestration in soils.

Methane belching from cattle might be reduced by intensification of farming,selective breeding,immunization against the many methanogens, rumen defaunation (killing the bacteria-killing protozoa), diet modification (e.g. seaweed fortification), decreased antibiotic use, and grazing management.

Measures that increase state revenues from meat consumption/production could enable the use of these funds for related research and development and "to cushion social hardships among low-income consumers". Meat and livestock are important sectors of the contemporary socioeconomic system, with livestock value chains employing an estimated >1.3 billion people.

Sequestering carbon into soil is currently not feasible to cancel out planet-warming emissions caused by the livestock sector. The global livestock annually emits 135 billion metric tons of carbon, way more than can be returned to the soil. Despite this, the idea of sequestering carbon to the soil is currently advocated by livestock industry as well as grassroots groups.

Agricultural subsidies for cattle and their feedstock could be stopped. A more controversial suggestion, advocated by George Monbiot in the documentary "Apocalypse Cow", is to stop farming cattle completely, however farmers often have political power so might be able to resist such a big change.

Effects on ecosystems

Soils

Clearings for cattle grazing in the Chaco region of Paraguay

Grazing can have positive or negative effects on rangeland health, depending on management quality, and grazing can have different effects on different soils and different plant communities. Grazing can sometimes reduce, and other times increase, biodiversity of grassland ecosystems. In beef production, cattle ranching helps preserve and improve the natural environment by maintaining habitats that are well suited for grazing animals. Lightly grazed grasslands also tend to have higher biodiversity than overgrazed or non-grazed grasslands. Overgrazing can decrease soil quality by constantly depleting it of necessary nutrients. By the end of 2002, the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) found that 16% of the evaluated 7,437 grazing allotments had failed to meet (rangeland health) standards because of their excessive grazing use.Overgrazing appears to cause soil erosion in many dry regions of the world. However, on US farmland, soil erosion is much less on land used for livestock grazing than on land used for crop production. According to the US Natural Resources Conservation Service, on 95.1% of US pastureland, sheet and (rill erosion) are within the estimated (soil loss tolerance), and on 99.4% of US pastureland, (wind erosion) is within the estimated soil loss tolerance.

Dryland grazing on the Great Plains in Colorado

Grazing can affect the sequestration of carbon and nitrogen in the soil. This sequestration helps mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and in some cases, increases ecosystem productivity by affecting nutrient cycling. A 2017 meta-study of the scientific literature estimated that the total global soil carbon sequestration potential from grazing management ranges from 0.3–0.8 gigatons CO₂eq per year, which is equivalent to 4–11% of total global livestock emissions, but that "Expansion or intensification in the grazing sector as an approach to sequestering more carbon would lead to substantial increases in methane, nitrous oxide and land use change-induced CO2 emissions". Project Drawdown estimates the total carbon sequestration potential of improved managed grazing at 13.72–20.92 gigatons CO₂eq between 2020–2050, equal to 0.46–0.70 gigatons CO₂eq per year. A 2022 peer-reviewed paper estimated the carbon sequestration potential of improved grazing management at a similar level of 0.15–0.70 gigatons CO₂eq per year. A 2021 peer-reviewed paper found that sparsely grazed and natural grasslands account for 80% of the total cumulative carbon sink of the world’s grasslands, whereas managed grasslands have been a net greenhouse gas source over the past decade. Another peer-reviewed paper found that if current pastureland was restored to its former state as wild grasslands, shrublands, and sparse savannas without livestock this could store an estimated 15.2–59.9 gigatons additional carbon. A study found that grazing in US virgin grasslands causes the soil to have lower soil organic carbon but higher soil nitrogen content. In contrast, at the High Plains Grasslands Research Station in Wyoming, the soil in the grazed pastures had more organic carbon and nitrogen in the top 30 cm than the soil in non-grazed pastures. Additionally, in the Piedmont region of the US, well-managed grazing of livestock on previously eroded soil resulted in high rates of beneficial carbon and nitrogen sequestration compared to non-grazed grass.

In Canada, a review highlighted that the methane and nitrous oxide emitted from manure management comprised 17% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, while nitrous oxide emitted from soils after application of manure, accounted for 50% of total emissions.

Manure provides environmental benefits when properly managed. Deposition of manure on pastures by grazing animals is an effective way to preserve soil fertility. Many nutrients are recycled in crop cultivation by collecting animal manure from barns and concentrated feeding sites, sometimes after composting. For many areas with high livestock density, manure application substantially replaces the application of synthetic fertilizers on surrounding cropland. Manure is also spread on forage-producing land that is grazed, rather than cropped.

Also, small-ruminant flocks in North America (and elsewhere) are sometimes used on fields for removal of various crop residues inedible by humans, converting them to food. Small ruminants, such as sheep and goats, can control some invasive or noxious weeds (such as (spotted knapweed), (tansy ragwort), leafy spurge, (yellow starthistle), (tall larkspur), etc.) on rangeland. Small ruminants are also useful for vegetation management in forest plantations and for clearing brush on rights-of-way. Other ruminants, like Nublang cattle, are used in Bhutan to help remove a species of bamboo, Yushania microphylla, which tends to crowd out indigenous plant species. These represent alternatives to herbicide use.

Biodiversity

Biomass of mammals on Earth

  Livestock, mostly cattle and pigs (60%)

  Humans (36%)

  Wild mammals (4%)

Meat production is considered one of the prime factors contributing to the current biodiversity loss crisis. The 2019 IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services found that industrial agriculture and overfishing are the primary drivers of the extinction, with the meat and dairy industries having a substantial impact. The global livestock sector contributes a significant share to anthropogenic GHG emissions, but it can also deliver a significant share of the necessary mitigation effort.FAO estimates that the adoption of already available best practices can reduce emissions by up to 30%.

Grazing (especially overgrazing) may detrimentally affect certain wildlife species, e.g. by altering cover and food supplies. The growing demand for meat is contributing to significant biodiversity loss as it is a significant driver of deforestation and habitat destruction; species-rich habitats, such as significant portions of the Amazon region, are being converted to agriculture for meat production. World Resource Institute (WRI) website mentions that "30 percent of global forest cover has been cleared, while another 20 percent has been degraded. Most of the rest has been fragmented, leaving only about 15 percent intact." WRI also states that around the world there is "an estimated 1.5 billion hectares (3.7 billion acres) of once-productive croplands and pasturelands – an area nearly the size of Russia – are degraded. Restoring productivity can improve food supplies, water security, and the ability to fight climate change." Around 25% to nearly 40% of global land surface is being used for livestock farming.

A 2022 report from World Animal Protection and the Center for Biological Diversity found that, based on 2018 data, some 235 million pounds (or 117,500 tons) of pesticides are used for animal feed purposes annually in the United States alone, in particular glyphosate and atrazine. The report emphasizes that 100,000 pounds of glyphosate has the potential to harm or kill some 93% of species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Atrazine, which is banned in 35 countries, could harm or kill at least 1,000 listed species. Both groups involved in the report advocate for consumers to reduce their consumption of animal products and to transition towards (plant-based diets) in order to reduce the growth of factory farming and protect endangered species of wildlife.

A 2023 study found that a vegan diet reduced wildlife destruction by 66%.

In North America, various studies have found that grazing sometimes improves habitat for elk, blacktailed prairie dogs, sage grouse, and mule deer. A survey of refuge managers on 123 National Wildlife Refuges in the US tallied 86 species of wildlife considered positively affected and 82 considered negatively affected by refuge cattle grazing or haying. The kind of grazing system employed (e.g. rest-rotation, deferred grazing, HILF grazing) is often important in achieving grazing benefits for particular wildlife species.

The biologists Rodolfo Dirzo, Gerardo Ceballos, and Paul R. Ehrlich write in an opinion piece for Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B that reductions in meat consumption "can translate not only into less heat, but also more space for biodiversity." They insist that it is the "massive planetary monopoly of industrial meat production that needs to be curbed" while respecting the cultural traditions of indigenous peoples, for whom meat is an important source of protein.

Aquatic ecosystems

Mean eutrophying emissions (water pollution by phosphates) of different foods per 100g of protein

Food type	Eutrophying emissions (g PO4^3-eq per 100g protein)
Beef	301.4
Farmed Fish	235.1
Farmed Crustaceans	227.2
Cheese	98.4
Lamb and Mutton	97.1
Pork	76.4
Poultry	48.7
Eggs	21.8
Groundnuts	14.1
Peas	7.5
Tofu	6.2

Global agricultural practices are known to be one of the main reasons for environmental degradation. Animal agriculture worldwide encompasses 83% of farmland (but only accounts for 18% of the global calorie intake), and the direct consumption of animals as well as over-harvesting them is causing environmental degradation through habitat alteration, biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution, and trophic interactions. These pressures are enough to drive biodiversity loss in any habitat, however freshwater ecosystems are showing to be more sensitive and less protected than others and show a very high effect on biodiversity loss when faced with these impacts.

In the Western United States, many stream and riparian habitats have been negatively affected by livestock grazing. This has resulted in increased phosphates, nitrates, decreased dissolved oxygen, increased temperature, turbidity, and eutrophication events, and reduced species diversity. Livestock management options for riparian protection include salt and mineral placement, limiting seasonal access, use of alternative water sources, provision of "hardened" stream crossings, herding, and fencing. In the Eastern United States, a 1997 study found that waste release from pork farms has also been shown to cause large-scale eutrophication of bodies of water, including the Mississippi River and Atlantic Ocean (Palmquist, et al., 1997). In North Carolina, where the study was done, measures have since been taken to reduce the risk of accidental discharges from manure lagoons, and since then there has been evidence of improved environmental management in US hog production. Implementation of manure and wastewater management planning can help assure low risk of problematic discharge into aquatic systems.

In Central-Eastern Argentina, a 2017 study found large quantities of metal pollutants (chromium, copper, arsenic and lead) in their freshwater streams, disrupting the aquatic biota. The level of chromium in the freshwater systems exceeded 181.5× the recommended guidelines necessary for survival of aquatic life, while lead was 41.6×, copper was 57.5×, and arsenic exceeded 12.9×. The results showed excess metal accumulation due to agricultural runoff, the use of pesticides, and poor mitigation efforts to stop the excess runoff.

Animal agriculture contributes to global warming, which leads to ocean acidification. This occurs because as carbon emissions increase, a chemical reaction occurs between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean water, causing seawater acidification. The process is also known as the dissolution of inorganic carbon in seawater. This chemical reaction creates an environment that makes it difficult for calcifying organisms to produce protective shells and causes seagrass overpopulation. A reduction in marine life can have an adverse effect on people’s way of life, since limited sea life may reduce food availability and reduce coastal protection against storms.

Effects on antibiotic resistance

This section is an excerpt from (Antibiotic use in livestock).[edit]

A CDC infographic on how antibiotic-resistant bacteria have the potential to spread from farm animals

(Antibiotic use in livestock) is the use of antibiotics for any purpose in the husbandry of livestock, which includes treatment when ill (therapeutic), treatment of a group of animals when at least one is diagnosed with clinical infection (metaphylaxis), and preventative treatment (prophylaxis). Antibiotics are an important tool to treat animal as well as human disease, safeguard animal health and welfare, and support food safety. However, used irresponsibly, this may lead to antibiotic resistance which may impact human, animal and environmental health.

While levels of use vary dramatically from country to country, for example some Northern European countries use very low quantities to treat animals compared with humans, worldwide an estimated 73% of antimicrobials (mainly antibiotics) are consumed by farm animals. Furthermore, a 2015 study also estimates that global agricultural antibiotic usage will increase by 67% from 2010 to 2030, mainly from increases in use in developing BRIC countries.

Increased antibiotic use is a matter of concern as antibiotic resistance is considered to be a serious threat to human and animal welfare in the future, and growing levels of antibiotics or antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the environment could increase the numbers of drug-resistant infections in both. Bacterial diseases are a leading cause of death and a future without effective antibiotics would fundamentally change the way modern human as well as veterinary medicine is practised. However, legislation and other curbs on antibiotic use in farm animals are now being introduced across the globe. In 2017, the World Health Organization strongly suggested reducing antibiotic use in animals used in the food industry.

The use of antibiotics for growth promotion purposes was banned in the European Union from 2006, and the use of sub-therapeutic doses of medically important antibiotics in animal feed and water to promote growth and improve feed efficiency became illegal in the United States on 1 January 2017, through regulatory change enacted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which sought voluntary compliance from drug manufacturers to re-label their antibiotics.

There are concerns about meat production's potential to spread diseases as an environmental impact.

Alternatives to meat production and consumption

A study shows that novel foods such as cultured meat and (dairy), algae, existing (microbial foods), and ground-up insects are shown to have the potential to (reduce environmental impacts) – by over 80%. Various combinations may further reduce the environmental impacts of these alternatives – for example, a study explored (solar-energy)-driven production of microbial foods from (direct air capture). Alternatives are not only relevant for human consumption but also for pet food and other animal feed.

Meat reduction and health

An insight to a vegetarian diet

With care, meat can be substituted in most diets with a wide variety of foods such as fungi or "meat substitutes". However, substantially reducing meat intake could result in nutritional deficiencies if done inadequately, especially for children, adolescents, and pregnant and lactating women "in low-income countries". A review suggests that the reduction of meat in people's diets should be accompanied by an increase in alternative sources of protein and micronutrients to avoid nutritional deficiencies for healthy diets such as iron and zinc. Meats notably also contain vitamin B₁₂,collagen and creatine. This could be achieved with specific types of foods such as iron-rich beans and a (diverse variety) of protein-rich foods like (red lentils), plant-based protein powders and high-protein (wraps), and/or dietary supplements. Dairy and fish and/or specific types of other foods and/or supplements contain omega 3, vitamin K₂, vitamin D₃, iodine, magnesium and calcium, many of which were generally lower in people consuming types of plant-based diets in studies.

Nevertheless, observational studies find beneficial effects from plant-based diets (compared to consumption of meat products) on health and mortality rates.

Meat-reduction strategies

Strategies for implementing meat-reduction among populations include large-scale education and awareness building to promote more sustainable consumption styles. Other types of policy interventions could accelerate these shifts and might include "restrictions or fiscal mechanisms such as meat taxes". In the case of fiscal mechanisms, these could be based on forms of scientific calculation of external costs (externalities currently not reflected in any way in the monetary price) to make the (polluter pay), e.g. for the damage done by excess nitrogen. In the case of restrictions, this could be based on limited domestic supply or (Personal (Carbon) Allowances (certificates and credits which would reward sustainable behavior)).

Relevant to such a strategy, estimating the environmental impacts of food products in a standardized way – as has been done with a dataset of more than 57,000 food products in supermarkets – could also be used to inform consumers or in policy, making consumers more aware of the environmental impacts of animal-based products (or requiring them to take such into consideration).

Young adults that are faced with new physical or social environments (for example, moving away from home) are also more likely to make dietary changes and reduce their meat intake. Another strategy includes increasing the prices of meat while also reducing the prices of plant-based products, which could show a significant impact on meat-reduction.

Meat reduction and increased plant-based preferences seen based on social and other life changes.

A reduction in meat portion sizes could potentially be more beneficial than cutting out meat entirely from ones diet, according to a 2022 study. This study revolved around young Dutch adults, and showed that the adults were more reluctant to cut out meat entirely to make the change to plant-based diets due to habitual behaviours. Increasing and improving plant-based alternatives, as well as the education about plant-based alternatives, proved to be one of the most effective ways to combat these behaviours. The lack of education about plant-based alternatives is a road-block for most people - most adults do not know how to properly cook plant-based meals or know the health risks/benefits associated with a vegetarian diet - which is why education among adults is important in meat-reduction strategies.

In the Netherlands, a meat tax of 15% to 30% could show a reduction of meat consumption by 8% to 16%. as well as reducing the amount of livestock by buying out farmers. In 2022, the city of Haarlem, Netherlands announced that advertisements for factory-farmed meat will be banned in public places, starting in 2024.

A 2022 review concluded that "low and moderate meat consumption levels are compatible with the climate targets and broader sustainable development, even for 10 billion people".

In June 2023, the European Commission's (Scientific Advice Mechanism) published a review of all available evidence and accompanying policy recommendations to promote sustainable food consumption and reducing meat intake. They reported that the evidence supports policy interventions on pricing (including "meat taxes, and pricing products according to their environmental impacts, as well as lower taxes on healthy and sustainable alternatives"), availability and visibility, food composition, labelling and the social environment. They also stated:

People choose food not just through rational reflection, but also based on many other factors: food availability, habits and routines, emotional and impulsive reactions, and their financial and social situation. So we should consider ways to unburden the consumer and make sustainable, healthy food an easy and affordable choice.

By type of animal

Cattle

The production of cattle has a significant environmental impact, whether measured in terms of methane emissions, land use, consumption of water, discharge of pollutants, or eutrophication of waterways.

Estimated virtual water requirements for various foods
(m³ water/ton)

	Hoekstra & Hung (2003)	Chapagain & Hoekstra (2003)	Zimmer & Renault (2003)	Oki et al. (2003)	Average
Beef		15,977	13,500	20,700	16,730
Pork		5,906	4,600	5,900	5,470
Cheese		5,288			5,290
Poultry		2,828	4,100	4,500	3,810
Eggs		4,657	2,700	3,200	3,520
Rice	2,656		1,400	3,600	2,550
Soybeans	2,300		2,750	2,500	2,520
Wheat	1,150		1,160	2,000	1,440
Maize	450		710	1,900	1,020
Milk		865	790	560	740
Potatoes	160		105		130

Mean land use of different foods

Food Types	Land Use (m^2·year per 100 g protein)
Lamb and Mutton	185
Beef	164
Cheese	41
Pork	11
Poultry	7.1
Eggs	5.7
Farmed Fish	3.7
Peanuts	3.5
Peas	3.4
Tofu	2.2

Significant numbers of dairy, as well as beef cattle, are confined in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), defined as "new and existing operations which stable or confine and feed or maintain for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period more than the number of animals specified" where "[c]rops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility." They may be designated as small, medium and large. Such designation of cattle CAFOs is according to cattle type (mature dairy cows, veal calves or other) and cattle numbers, but medium CAFOs are so designated only if they meet certain discharge criteria, and small CAFOs are designated only on a case-by-case basis.

A CAFO that discharges pollutants is required to obtain a permit, which requires a plan to manage nutrient runoff, manure, chemicals, contaminants, and other wastewater pursuant to the US Clean Water Act. The regulations involving CAFO permitting have been extensively litigated.

Commonly, CAFO wastewater and manure nutrients are applied to land at agronomic rates for use by forages or crops, and it is often assumed that various constituents of wastewater and manure, e.g. organic contaminants and pathogens, will be retained, inactivated or degraded on the land with application at such rates; however, additional evidence is needed to test reliability of such assumptions. Concerns raised by opponents of CAFOs have included risks of contaminated water due to feedlot runoff, soil erosion, human and animal exposure to toxic chemicals, development of (antibiotic resistant bacteria) and an increase in E. coli contamination. While research suggests some of these impacts can be mitigated by developing wastewater treatment systems and planting cover crops in larger setback zones, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2008 concluding that CAFOs are generally unsustainable and (externalize costs).

Another concern is manure, which if not well-managed, can lead to adverse environmental consequences. However, manure also is a valuable source of nutrients and organic matter when used as a fertilizer. Manure was used as a fertilizer on about 6,400,000 hectares (15.8 million acres) of US cropland in 2006, with manure from cattle accounting for nearly 70% of manure applications to soybeans and about 80% or more of manure applications to corn, wheat, barley, oats and sorghum. Substitution of manure for synthetic fertilizers in crop production can be environmentally significant, as between 43 and 88 megajoules of fossil fuel energy would be used per kg of nitrogen in manufacture of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers.

Grazing by cattle at low intensities can create a favourable environment for native herbs and forbs by mimicking the native grazers who they displaced; in many world regions, though, cattle are reducing biodiversity due to overgrazing. A survey of refuge managers on 123 National Wildlife Refuges in the US tallied 86 species of wildlife considered positively affected and 82 considered negatively affected by refuge cattle grazing or haying. Proper management of pastures, notably managed intensive rotational grazing and grazing at low intensities can lead to less use of fossil fuel energy, increased recapture of carbon dioxide, fewer ammonia emissions into the atmosphere, reduced soil erosion, better air quality, and less water pollution.

Pigs

This section is an excerpt from Environmental impact of pig farming.[edit]

The environmental impact of pig farming is mainly driven by the spread of feces and waste to surrounding neighborhoods, polluting air and water with toxic waste particles. Waste from pig farms can carry pathogens, bacteria (often antibiotic resistant), and heavy metals that can be toxic when ingested. Pig waste also contributes to groundwater pollution in the forms of groundwater seepage and waste spray into neighboring areas with sprinklers. The contents in the spray and waste drift have been shown to cause mucosal irritation, respiratory ailment, increased stress, decreased quality of life, and higher blood pressure. This form of waste disposal is an attempt for factory farms to be cost efficient. The environmental degradation resulting from pig farming presents an environmental injustice problem, since the communities do not receive any benefit from the operations, and instead, suffer negative externalities, such as pollution and health problems. The United States Agriculture and Consumer Health Department has stated that the "main direct environmental impact of pig production is related to the manure produced.

See also

• Agroecology
• (Animal-free agriculture)
• Animal–industrial complex
• Carbon tax
• (Meat price)
• Cultured meat
• Economic vegetarianism
• Factory farming divestment
• Environmental impact of agriculture
• (Environmental impact of fishing)
• (Environmental vegetarianism)
• (Food vs. feed)
• Stranded assets in the agriculture and forestry sector
• Sustainable agriculture
• Sustainable diet
• Veganism

Notes

1. FAO say that in 2015 livestock production created around 12% of greenhouse gas emissions, some 62% of which is due to cattle, thus 7%.

References

1. Mitigation of Climate Change: Full report (Report). IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. 2022. 7.3.2.1 page 771.
2. Carrington, Damian (October 10, 2018). "Huge reduction in meat-eating 'essential' to avoid climate breakdown". The Guardian. Retrieved October 16, 2017.
3. Eisen, Michael B.; Brown, Patrick O. (2022-02-01). "Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO₂ emissions this century". PLOS Climate. 1 (2): e0000010. doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010. ISSN 2767-3200. S2CID 246499803.
4. Damian Carrington, "Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth ", The Guardian, 31 May 2018 (page visited on 19 August 2018).
5. Parlasca, Martin C.; Qaim, Matin (5 October 2022). "Meat Consumption and Sustainability". Annual Review of Resource Economics. 14: 17–41. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340. ISSN 1941-1340.
6. Devlin, Hannah (July 19, 2018). "Rising global meat consumption 'will devastate environment'". The Guardian. Retrieved July 21, 2018.
7. Godfray, H. Charles J.; Aveyard, Paul; et al. (2018). "Meat consumption, health, and the environment". Science. 361 (6399). Bibcode:2018Sci...361M5324G. doi:10.1126/science.aam5324. PMID 30026199. S2CID 49895246.
8. FAO. 2006. World agriculture: towards 2030/2050. Prospects for food, nutrition, agriculture and major commodity groups. Interim report. Global Perspectives Unit, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. 71 pp.
9. Nibert, David (2011). "Origins and Consequences of the Animal Industrial Complex". In Steven Best; Richard Kahn; Anthony J. Nocella II; Peter McLaren (eds.). The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination. . p. 208. ISBN .
10. Ritchie, Hannah; Roser, Max (2017-08-25). "Meat and Dairy Production". Our World in Data.
11. . 2011-10-16. Archived from the original on 2011-10-16. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
12. Fadel, J. G (1999-06-30). "Quantitative analyses of selected plant by-product feedstuffs, a global perspective". Animal Feed Science and Technology. 79 (4): 255–268. doi:10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00031-0. ISSN 0377-8401.
13. Schingoethe, David J. (1991-07-01). "Byproduct Feeds: Feed Analysis and Interpretation". Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 7 (2): 577–584. doi:10.1016/S0749-0720(15)30787-8. ISSN 0749-0720. PMID 1654177.
14. Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; de Haan, Cees (2006), Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (PDF), Rome: FAO
15. Mottet, A.; de Haan, C.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G.; Opio, C.; Gerber, P. (2022). More fuel for the food/feed debate. FAO.
16. Mottet, Anne; de Haan, Cees; Falcucci, Alessandra; Tempio, Giuseppe; Opio, Carolyn; Gerber, Pierre (2017-09-01). "Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate". Global Food Security. Food Security Governance in Latin America. 14: 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001. ISSN 2211-9124.
17. Borsari, Bruno; Kunnas, Jan (2020), Leal Filho, Walter; Azul, Anabela Marisa; Brandli, Luciana; özuyar, Pinar Gökçin (eds.), "Agriculture Production and Consumption", Responsible Consumption and Production, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–11, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_78, ISBN , retrieved 2023-02-20
18. Zheng, Zhihao; Henneberry, Shida Rastegari (2010). "The Impact of Changes in Income Distribution on Current and Future Food Demand in Urban China". Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 35 (1): 51–71. ISSN 1068-5502. JSTOR 23243036.
19. Elferink, E. V.; et al. (2008). "Feeding livestock food residue and the consequences for the environmental impact of meat". J. Clean. Prod. 16 (12): 1227–1233. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.008.
20. Hoffman, L. and A. Baker. 2010. Market issues and prospects for U.S. distillers' grains supply, use, and price relationships. USDA FDS-10k-01
21. National Research Council. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. National Academy Press.
22. Anderson, D. C. (1978). "Use of cereal residues in beef cattle production systems". J. Anim. Sci. 46 (3): 849–861. doi:10.2527/jas1978.463849x.
23. Males, J. R. (1987). "Optimizing the utilization of cereal crop residues for beef cattle". J. Anim. Sci. 65 (4): 1124–1130. doi:10.2527/jas1987.6541124x.
24. Ward, J. K. (1978). "Utilization of corn and grain sorghum residues in beef cow forage systems". J. Anim. Sci. 46 (3): 831–840. doi:10.2527/jas1978.463831x.
25. Klopfenstein, T.; et al. (1987). "Corn residues in beef production systems". J. Anim. Sci. 65 (4): 1139–1148. doi:10.2527/jas1987.6541139x.
26. Nemecek, T.; Poore, J. (2018-06-01). "Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers". Science. 360 (6392): 987–992. Bibcode:2018Sci...360..987P. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 29853680.
27. Merrill, Dave; Leatherby, Lauren (2018-07-31). "Here's How America Uses Its Land". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2019-11-11.
28. "Agricultural land (% of land area) | Data". data.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2023-01-13.
29. "Arable land (% of land area) | Data". data.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2023-01-13.
30. Carrington, Damian (20 July 2023). "Vegan diet massively cuts environmental damage, study shows". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 July 2023.
31. "How much does eating meat affect nations' greenhouse gas emissions?". Science News. 5 May 2022. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
32. Wang, George C. (April 9, 2017). "Go vegan, save the planet". CNN. Retrieved August 25, 2019.
33. Liotta, Edoardo (August 23, 2019). "Feeling Sad About the Amazon Fires? Stop Eating Meat". Vice. Retrieved August 25, 2019.
34. Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, T. D.; Castel, Vincent (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN . Retrieved August 19, 2008.
35. Margulis, Sergio (2004). Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon (PDF) (World Bank Working Paper No. 22). Washington D.C.: The World Bank. p. 9. ISBN . (PDF) from the original on September 10, 2008. Retrieved September 4, 2008.
36. Erb KH, Lauk C, Kastner T, Mayer A, Theurl MC, Haberl H (19 April 2016). "Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation". Nature Communications. 7: 11382. Bibcode:2016NatCo...711382E. doi:10.1038/ncomms11382. PMC 4838894. PMID 27092437.
37. Grazing with trees. A silvopastoral approach to managing and restoring drylands. Rome: FAO. 2022. doi:10.4060/cc2280en. hdl:2078.1/267328. ISBN . S2CID 252636900.
38. Velasco-Muñoz, Juan F. (2018-04-05). "Sustainable Water Use in Agriculture: A Review of Worldwide Research". Sustainability. 10 (4): 1084. doi:10.3390/su10041084. hdl:10835/7355. ISSN 2071-1050.
39. Konikow, L. W. 2013. Groundwater depletion in the United States (1900-2008). United States Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5079. 63 pp.
40. "HA 730-C High Plains aquifer. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah". United States Geological Survey. Retrieved 2018-10-13.
41. USDA. 2011. USDA Agricultural Statistics 2011.
42. USDA 2010. 2007 Census of agriculture. AC07-SS-1. Farm and ranch irrigation survey (2008). Volume 3, Special Studies. Part 1. (Issued 2009, updated 2010.) 209 pp. + appendices. Tables 1 and 28.
43. USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. United States Summary and State Data. Vol. 1. Geographic Area Series. Part 51. AC-07-A-51. 639 pp. + appendices. Table 1.
44. Kenny, J. F. et al. 2009. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005, US Geological Survey Circular 1344. 52 pp.
45. Zering, K. D., T. J. Centner, D. Meyer, G. L. Newton, J. M. Sweeten and S. Woodruff.2012. Water and land issues associated with animal agriculture: a U.S. perspective. CAST Issue Paper No. 50. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. 24 pp.
46. Richter, Brian D.; Bartak, Dominique; Caldwell, Peter; Davis, Kyle Frankel; Debaere, Peter; Hoekstra, Arjen Y.; Li, Tianshu; Marston, Landon; McManamay, Ryan; Mekonnen, Mesfin M.; Ruddell, Benjamin L. (2020-03-02). "Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production". Nature Sustainability. 3 (4): 319–328. Bibcode:2020NatSu...3..319R. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0483-z. ISSN 2398-9629. S2CID 211730442.
47. Borunda, Alejandra (March 2, 2020). . National Geographic. Archived from the original on March 3, 2020. Retrieved April 27, 2020.
48. Xiao, Zhengyan; Yao, Meiqin; Tang, Xiaotong; Sun, Luxi (2019-01-01). "Identifying critical supply chains: An input-output analysis for Food-Energy-Water Nexus in China". Ecological Modelling. 392: 31–37. Bibcode:2019EcMod.392...31X. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.11.006. ISSN 0304-3800. S2CID 92222220.
49. Fabrique [merken, design & interactie. "Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison". waterfootprint.org. Retrieved 2023-01-13.
50. . Archived from the original on 2019-01-29. Retrieved 2017-06-07.
51. the US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122.42(e)
52. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Appendix to EPA ICR 1989.06: Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Final Rule)
53. the US EPA. National Enforcement Initiative: Preventing animal waste from contaminating surface and groundwater. http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-preventing-animal-waste-contaminating-surface-and-ground#progress 2018-09-10 at the Wayback Machine
54. Zhou, Yuan; Yang, Hong; Mosler, Hans-Joachim; Abbaspour, Karim C. (2010). "Factors affecting farmers' decisions on fertilizer use: A case study for the Chaobai watershed in Northern China". Consilience (4): 80–102. ISSN 1948-3074. JSTOR 26167133.
55. HERNÁNDEZ, DANIEL L.; VALLANO, DENA M.; ZAVALETA, ERIKA S.; TZANKOVA, ZDRAVKA; PASARI, JAE R.; WEISS, STUART; SELMANTS, PAUL C.; MOROZUMI, CORINNE (2016). "Nitrogen Pollution Is Linked to US Listed Species Declines". BioScience. 66 (3): 213–222. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw003. ISSN 0006-3568. JSTOR 90007566.
56. Berger, Jamie (2022-04-01). "How Black North Carolinians pay the price for the world's cheap bacon". Vox. Retrieved 2023-11-30.
57. Merchant, James A.; Naleway, Allison L.; Svendsen, Erik R.; Kelly, Kevin M.; Burmeister, Leon F.; Stromquist, Ann M.; Taylor, Craig D.; Thorne, Peter S.; Reynolds, Stephen J.; Sanderson, Wayne T.; Chrischilles, Elizabeth A. (2005). "Asthma and Farm Exposures in a Cohort of Rural Iowa Children". Environmental Health Perspectives. 113 (3): 350–356. doi:10.1289/ehp.7240. PMC 1253764. PMID 15743727.
58. Borrell, Brendan (December 3, 2018). "In California's Fertile Valley, a Bumper Crop of Air Pollution". Undark. Retrieved 2019-09-27.
59. Viegas, S.; Faísca, V. M.; Dias, H.; Clérigo, A.; Carolino, E.; Viegas, C. (2013). "Occupational Exposure to Poultry Dust and Effects on the Respiratory System in Workers". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A. 76 (4–5): 230–239. Bibcode:2013JTEHA..76..230V. doi:10.1080/15287394.2013.757199. PMID 23514065. S2CID 22558834.
60. George, Maureen; Bruzzese, Jean-Marie; Matura, Lea Ann (2017). "Climate Change Effects on Respiratory Health: Implications for Nursing". Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 49 (6): 644–652. doi:10.1111/jnu.12330. PMID 28806469.
61. Radon, Katja; Schulze, Anja; Ehrenstein, Vera; Van Strien, Rob T.; Praml, Georg; Nowak, Dennis (2007). "Environmental Exposure to Confined Animal Feeding Operations and Respiratory Health of Neighboring Residents". Epidemiology. 18 (3): 300–308. doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000259966.62137.84. PMID 17435437. S2CID 15905956.
62. Schinasi, Leah; Horton, Rachel Avery; Guidry, Virginia T.; Wing, Steve; Marshall, Stephen W.; Morland, Kimberly B. (2011). "Air Pollution, Lung Function, and Physical Symptoms in Communities Near Concentrated Swine Feeding Operations". Epidemiology. 22 (2): 208–215. doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3182093c8b. PMC 5800517. PMID 21228696.
63. Mirabelli, M. C.; Wing, S.; Marshall, S. W.; Wilcosky, T. C. (2006). "Asthma Symptoms Among Adolescents Who Attend Public Schools That Are Located Near Confined Swine Feeding Operations". Pediatrics. 118 (1): e66–e75. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2812. PMC 4517575. PMID 16818539.
64. Pavilonis, Brian T.; Sanderson, Wayne T.; Merchant, James A. (2013). "Relative exposure to swine animal feeding operations and childhood asthma prevalence in an agricultural cohort". Environmental Research. 122: 74–80. Bibcode:2013ER....122...74P. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2012.12.008. PMC 3980580. PMID 23332647.
65. Müller-Suur, C.; Larsson, K.; Malmberg, P.; Larsson, P.H. (1997). "Increased number of activated lymphocytes in human lung following swine dust inhalation". European Respiratory Journal. 10 (2): 376–380. doi:10.1183/09031936.97.10020376. PMID 9042635.
66. Carrie, Hribar (2010). "Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities" (PDF). 2010 National Association of Local Boards of Health – via Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
67. Areal, Ashtyn Tracey; Zhao, Qi; Wigmann, Claudia; Schneider, Alexandra; Schikowski, Tamara (2022-03-10). "The effect of air pollution when modified by temperature on respiratory health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Science of the Total Environment. 811: 152336. Bibcode:2022ScTEn.811o2336A. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152336. ISSN 0048-9697. PMID 34914983. S2CID 245204902.
68. Cooke, Christina (2017-05-09). "NC GOP Protects Factory Farms' Right to Pollute". Civil Eats. Retrieved 2023-11-30.
69. Röös, Elin; Sundberg, Cecilia; Tidåker, Pernilla; Strid, Ingrid; Hansson, Per-Anders (2013-01-01). "Can carbon footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental impact of meat production?". Ecological Indicators. 24: 573–581. Bibcode:2013EcInd..24..573R. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.004.
70. Capper, J. L. (2011). "The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007". J. Anim. Sci. 89 (12): 4249–4261. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3784. PMID 21803973.
71. Erneubare Energien in Deutschland - Rückblick und Stand des Innovationsgeschehens. Bundesministerium fűr Umwelt, Naturschutz u. Reaktorsicherheit. http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemin/application/pdf/ibee_gesamt_bf.pdf^[]
72. Biogas from manure and waste products - Swedish case studies. SBGF; SGC; Gasföreningen. 119 pp. http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/public-task37/public-member/Swedish_report_08.pdf^[]
73. "U.S. Anaerobic Digester" (PDF). Agf.gov.bc.ca. 2014-06-02. Retrieved 2015-03-30.
74. NRCS. 2007. An analysis of energy production costs from anaerobic digestion systems on U.S. livestock production facilities. US Natural Resources Conservation Service. Tech. Note 1. 33 pp.
75. Ramirez, Jerome; McCabe, Bernadette; Jensen, Paul D.; Speight, Robert; Harrison, Mark; van den Berg, Lisa; O'Hara, Ian (2021). "Wastes to profit: a circular economy approach to value-addition in livestock industries". Animal Production Science. 61 (6): 541. doi:10.1071/AN20400. S2CID 233881148.
76. Kerr R.B., Hasegawa T., Lasco R., Bhatt I., Deryng D., Farrell A., Gurney-Smith H., Ju H., Lluch-Cota S., Meza F., Nelson G., Neufeldt H., Thornton P., 2022: Chapter 5: Food, Fibre and Other Ecosystem Products. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke,V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, US, pp. 1457–1579 |doi=10.1017/9781009325844.012
77. Ellen Phiddian (5 April 2022). "Explainer: IPCC Scenarios". Cosmos. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
78. Roth, Sabrina K.; Hader, John D.; Domercq, Prado; Sobek, Anna; MacLeod, Matthew (22 May 2023). "Scenario-based modelling of changes in chemical intake fraction in Sweden and the Baltic Sea under global change". Science of the Total Environment. 888: 2329–2340. Bibcode:2023ScTEn.888p4247R. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164247. PMID 37196966. S2CID 258751271.
79. "just-transition-meat-sector" (PDF).
80. Lisa O'Carroll (3 November 2021). "Ireland would need to cull up to 1.3 million cattle to reach climate targets". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 June 2023.
81. Rasmussen, Laura Vang; Hall, Charlotte; Vansant, Emilie C.; Braber, Bowie den; Olesen, Rasmus Skov (17 September 2021). "Rethinking the approach of a global shift toward plant-based diets". One Earth. 4 (9): 1201–1204. Bibcode:2021OEart...4.1201R. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.018. S2CID 239376124.
82. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013) "FAO STATISTICAL YEARBOOK 2013 World Food and Agriculture". See data in Table 49.
83. Ripple WJ, Smith P, Haberl H, Montzka SA, McAlpine C, Boucher DH (20 December 2013). "Ruminants, climate change and climate policy". Nature Climate Change. 4 (1): 2–5. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4....2R. doi:10.1038/nclimate2081.
84. Giamouri, Elisavet; Zisis, Foivos; Mitsiopoulou, Christina; Christodoulou, Christos; Pappas, Athanasios C.; Simitzis, Panagiotis E.; Kamilaris, Charalampos; Galliou, Fenia; Manios, Thrassyvoulos; Mavrommatis, Alexandros; Tsiplakou, Eleni (2023-02-24). "Sustainable Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Small Ruminants Farming". Sustainability. 15 (5): 4118. doi:10.3390/su15054118. ISSN 2071-1050.
85. Cicerone RJ, Oremland RS (December 1988). "Biogeochemical aspects of atmospheric methane". Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 2 (4): 299–327. Bibcode:1988GBioC...2..299C. doi:10.1029/GB002i004p00299. S2CID 56396847.
86. Yavitt JB (1992). "Methane, biogeochemical cycle". Encyclopedia of Earth System Science. 3. London, England: Academic Press: 197–207.
87. "New FAO report maps pathways towards lower livestock emissions". Newsroom. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
88. "Livestock Don't Contribute 14.5% of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions". The Breakthrough Institute. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
89. "Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions". The Economist. 2 October 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 3 November 2021.
90. "Sectors - Climate TRACE". climatetrace.org. Retrieved 2024-03-27.
91. US EPA. 2012. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gase emissions and sinks: 1990–2010. US. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-12-001. Section 6.2.
92. Rivera, Julián Esteban; Chará, Julian (2021). "CH4 and N2O Emissions From Cattle Excreta: A Review of Main Drivers and Mitigation Strategies in Grazing Systems". Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 5. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.657936. ISSN 2571-581X.
93. 7.SM.6 Tables of greenhouse gas lifetimes, radiative efficiencies and metrics (PDF), IPCC, 2021, p. 7SM-24.
94. Eckard, R. J.; Grainger, C.; de Klein, C.A.M. (2010). "Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review". Livestock Science. 130 (1–3): 47–56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010.
95. Ghassemi Nejad, J.; Ju, M. S.; Jo, J. H.; Oh, K. H.; Lee, Y. S.; Lee, S. D.; Kim, E. J.; Roh, S.; Lee, H. G. (2024). "Advances in Methane Emission Estimation in Livestock: A Review of Data Collection Methods, Model Development and the Role of AI Technologies". Animals. 14 (3): 435. doi:10.3390/ani14030435. PMC 10854801. PMID 38338080.
96. Soder, K. J.; Brito, A. F. (2023). "Enteric methane emissions in grazing dairy systems". JDS Communications. 4 (4): 324–328. doi:10.3168/jdsc.2022-0297. PMC 10382831. PMID 37521055.
97. Poore, J.; Nemecek, T. (2018-06-01). "Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers". Science. 360 (6392): 987–992. Bibcode:2018Sci...360..987P. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216. ISSN 1095-9203. PMID 29853680. S2CID 206664954.
98. Gibbens, Sarah (January 16, 2019). . National Geographic. Archived from the original on January 17, 2019. Retrieved January 21, 2019.
99. "How plant-based diets not only reduce our carbon footprint, but also increase carbon capture". Leiden University. Retrieved 14 February 2022.
100. Sun, Zhongxiao; Scherer, Laura; Tukker, Arnold; Spawn-Lee, Seth A.; Bruckner, Martin; Gibbs, Holly K.; Behrens, Paul (January 2022). "Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend". Nature Food. 3 (1): 29–37. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5. ISSN 2662-1355. PMID 37118487. S2CID 245867412.
101. Castonguay, Adam C.; Polasky, Stephen; H. Holden, Matthew; Herrero, Mario; Mason-D’Croz, Daniel; Godde, Cecile; Chang, Jinfeng; Gerber, James; Witt, G. Bradd; Game, Edward T.; A. Bryan, Brett; Wintle, Brendan; Lee, Katie; Bal, Payal; McDonald-Madden, Eve (March 2023). "Navigating sustainability trade-offs in global beef production". Nature Sustainability. 6 (3): 284–294. Bibcode:2023NatSu...6..284C. doi:10.1038/s41893-022-01017-0. ISSN 2398-9629. S2CID 255638753.
102. . Archived from the original on 2019-08-10. Retrieved 2018-11-30.
103. "Canada Is Using Genetics to Make Cows Less Gassy". Wired. 2017-06-09. from the original on 2023-05-24.
104. Joblin, K. N. (1999). "Ruminal acetogens and their potential to lower ruminant methane emissions". Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 50 (8): 1307. doi:10.1071/AR99004.
105. The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review
106. Parmar, N.R.; Nirmal Kumar, J.I.; Joshi, C.G. (2015). "Exploring diet-dependent shifts in methanogen and methanotroph diversity in the rumen of Mehsani buffalo by a metagenomics approach". Frontiers in Life Science. 8 (4): 371–378. doi:10.1080/21553769.2015.1063550. S2CID 89217740.
107. Boadi, D (2004). "Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review". Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84 (3): 319–335. doi:10.4141/a03-109.
108. Martin, C. et al. 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4 : pp 351-365.
109. Eckard, R. J.; et al. (2010). "Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review". Livestock Science. 130 (1–3): 47–56. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010.
110. Dalal, R.C.; et al. (2003). "Nitrous oxide emission from Australian agricultural lands and mitigation options: a review". Australian Journal of Soil Research. 41 (2): 165–195. doi:10.1071/sr02064. S2CID 4498983.
111. Klein, C. A. M.; Ledgard, S. F. (2005). "Nitrous oxide emissions from New Zealand agriculture – key sources and mitigation strategies". Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 72 (1): 77–85. Bibcode:2005NCyAg..72...77D. doi:10.1007/s10705-004-7357-z. S2CID 42756018.
112. Gerber, P. J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci and G. Tempio. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock - a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 115 pp.
113. Reisinger, Andy; Clark, Harry; Cowie, Annette L.; Emmet-Booth, Jeremy; Gonzalez Fischer, Carlos; Herrero, Mario; Howden, Mark; Leahy, Sinead (2021-11-15). "How necessary and feasible are reductions of methane emissions from livestock to support stringent temperature goals?". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 379 (2210): 20200452. Bibcode:2021RSPTA.37900452R. doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0452. ISSN 1364-503X. PMC 8480228. PMID 34565223.
114. L. Aban, Maita; C. Bestil, Lolito (2016). "Rumen Defaunation: Determining the Level and Frequency of Leucaena leucocephala Linn. Forage" (PDF). International Journal of Food Engineering. 2 (1).
115. Lewis Mernit, Judith (2 July 2018). "How Eating Seaweed Can Help Cows to Belch Less Methane". Yale School of the Environment. Retrieved 29 January 2022.
116. Axt, Barbara (25 May 2016). "Treating cows with antibiotics doubles dung methane emissions". New Scientist. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
117. Willis, Katie. "Grazing livestock could reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, study shows". www.ualberta.ca. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
118. Wang, Yue; de Boer, Imke J. M.; Persson, U. Martin; Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon; Cederberg, Christel; Gerber, Pierre J.; Smith, Pete; van Middelaar, Corina E. (2023-11-22). "Risk to rely on soil carbon sequestration to offset global ruminant emissions". Nature Communications. 14 (1): 7625. Bibcode:2023NatCo..14.7625W. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43452-3. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 10665458. PMID 37993450.
119. Fassler, Joe (2024-02-01). "Research Undermines Claims that Soil Carbon Can Offset Livestock Emissions". DeSmog. Retrieved 2024-02-02.
120. Carrington, Damian (2021-09-14). "Nearly all global farm subsidies harm people and planet – UN". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-03-27.
121. "George Monbiot: "Agriculture is arguably the most destructive industry on Earth"". New Statesman. 13 May 2022. Retrieved 4 June 2022.
122. Bilotta, G. S.; Brazier, R. E.; Haygarth, P. M. (2007). "The impacts of grazing animals on the quality of soils, vegetation, and surface waters in intensively managed grasslands". Advances in Agronomy. Advances in Agronomy. Vol. 94. pp. 237–280. doi:10.1016/s0065-2113(06)94006-1. ISBN .
123. Greenwood, K. L.; McKenzie, B. M. (2001). "Grazing effects on soil physical properties and the consequences for pastures: a review". Austral. J. Exp. Agr. 41 (8): 1231–1250. doi:10.1071/EA00102.
124. Milchunas, D. G.; Lauenroth, W. KI. (1993). "Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments". Ecological Monographs. 63 (4): 327–366. Bibcode:1993EcoM...63..327M. doi:10.2307/2937150. JSTOR 2937150.
125. Olff, H.; Ritchie, M. E. (1998). "Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity" (PDF). Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 13 (7): 261–265. doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01364-0. hdl:11370/3e3ec5d4-fa03-4490-94e3-66534b3fe62f. PMID 21238294.
126. Environment Canada. 2013. Amended recovery strategy for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act, Recovery Strategy Series. 57 pp.
127. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "The contributions of livestock species and breeds to ecosystem services" (PDF).
128. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016). "The contributions of livestock species and breeds to ecosystem services" (PDF). FAO. Retrieved 2021-05-15.
129. National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland Health. New Methods to Classify, Inventory and Monitor Rangelands. Nat. Acad. Press. 182 pp.
130. US BLM. 2004. Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands. FES 04-39
131. NRCS. 2009. Summary report 2007 national resources inventory. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 123 pp.
132. De Mazancourt, C.; Loreau, M.; Abbadie, L. (1998). "Grazing optimization and nutrient cycling: when do herbivores enhance plant production?". Ecology. 79 (7): 2242–2252. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2242:goancw]2.0.co;2. S2CID 52234485.
133. Garnett, Tara; Godde, Cécile (2017). "Grazed and confused?" (PDF). Food Climate Research Network. p. 64. Retrieved 11 February 2021. The non-peer-reviewed estimates from the Savory Institute are strikingly higher – and, for all the reasons discussed earlier (Section 3.4.3), unrealistic.
134. "Table of Solutions". Project Drawdown. 2020-02-05. Retrieved 2023-07-23.
135. Bai, Yongfei; Cotrufo, M. Francesca (2022-08-05). "Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions". Science. 377 (6606): 603–608. Bibcode:2022Sci...377..603B. doi:10.1126/science.abo2380. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 35926033. S2CID 251349023.
136. Chang, Jinfeng; Ciais, Philippe; Gasser, Thomas; Smith, Pete; Herrero, Mario; Havlík, Petr; Obersteiner, Michael; Guenet, Bertrand; Goll, Daniel S.; Li, Wei; Naipal, Victoria; Peng, Shushi; Qiu, Chunjing; Tian, Hanqin; Viovy, Nicolas (2021-01-05). "Climate warming from managed grasslands cancels the cooling effect of carbon sinks in sparsely grazed and natural grasslands". Nature Communications. 12 (1): 118. Bibcode:2021NatCo..12..118C. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20406-7. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7785734. PMID 33402687.
137. Hayek, Matthew N.; Harwatt, Helen; Ripple, William J.; Mueller, Nathaniel D. (January 2021). "The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land". Nature Sustainability. 4 (1): 21–24. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4. ISSN 2398-9629. S2CID 221522148.
138. Bauer, A.; Cole, C. V.; Black, A. L. (1987). "Soil property comparisons in virgin grasslands between grazed and nongrazed management systems". Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51 (1): 176–182. Bibcode:1987SSASJ..51..176B. doi:10.2136/sssaj1987.03615995005100010037x.
139. Manley, J. T.; Schuman, G. E.; Reeder, J. D.; Hart, R. H. (1995). "Rangeland soil carbon and nitrogen responses to grazing". J. Soil Water Cons. 50: 294–298.
140. Franzluebbers, A.J.; Stuedemann, J. A. (2010). "Surface soil changes during twelve years of pasture management in the southern Piedmont USA". Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74 (6): 2131–2141. Bibcode:2010SSASJ..74.2131F. doi:10.2136/sssaj2010.0034.
141. Kebreab, E.; Clark, K.; Wagner-Riddle, C.; France, J. (2006-06-01). "Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian animal agriculture: A review". Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 86 (2): 135–157. doi:10.4141/A05-010. ISSN 0008-3984.
142. McDonald, J. M. et al. 2009. Manure use for fertilizer and for energy. Report to Congress. USDA, AP-037. 53pp.
143. "Livestock Grazing Guidelines for Controlling Noxious weeds in the Western United States" (PDF). University of Nevada. Retrieved 24 April 2019.
144. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "The contributions of livestock species and breeds to ecosystem services" (PDF).
145. Launchbaugh, K. (ed.) 2006. Targeted Grazing: a natural approach to vegetation management and landscape enhancement. American Sheep Industry. 199 pp.
146. Damian Carrington, "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study", The Guardian, 21 May 2018 (page visited on 19 August 2018).
147. Baillie, Jonathan; Zhang, Ya-Ping (2018). "Space for nature". Science. 361 (6407): 1051. Bibcode:2018Sci...361.1051B. doi:10.1126/science.aau1397. PMID 30213888.
148. Morell, Virginia (2015). "Meat-eaters may speed worldwide species extinction, study warns". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aad1607.
149. Woodyatt, Amy (May 26, 2020). "Human activity threatens billions of years of evolutionary history, researchers warn". CNN. Retrieved May 27, 2020.
150. Hentschl, Moritz; Michalke, Amelie; Pieper, Maximilian; Gaugler, Tobias; Stoll-Kleemann, Susanne (2023-05-11). "Dietary change and land use change: assessing preventable climate and biodiversity damage due to meat consumption in Germany". Sustainability Science. doi:10.1007/s11625-023-01326-z. ISSN 1862-4057.
151. McGrath, Matt (6 May 2019). "Humans 'threaten 1m species with extinction'". BBC. Retrieved 3 July 2019. Pushing all this forward, though, are increased demands for food from a growing global population and specifically our growing appetite for meat and fish.
152. Watts, Jonathan (6 May 2019). "Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 July 2019. Agriculture and fishing are the primary causes of the deterioration. Food production has increased dramatically since the 1970s, which has helped feed a growing global population and generated jobs and economic growth. But this has come at a high cost. The meat industry has a particularly heavy impact. Grazing areas for cattle account for about 25% of the world's ice-free land and more than 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
153. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock. FAO. 2013. ISBN .
154. Hance, Jeremy (October 20, 2015). "How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction". The Guardian. Retrieved January 10, 2017.
155. Machovina, B.; Feeley, K. J.; Ripple, W. J. (2015). "Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption". Science of the Total Environment. 536: 419–431. Bibcode:2015ScTEn.536..419M. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022. PMID 26231772.
156. "Forests". World Resources Institute. Retrieved 2020-01-24.
157. "Tackling Global Challenges". World Resources Institute. 2018-05-04. Retrieved 2020-01-24.
158. Sutter, John D. (December 12, 2016). "How to stop the sixth mass extinction". CNN. Retrieved January 10, 2017.
159. Boyle, Louise (February 22, 2022). "US meat industry using 235m pounds of pesticides a year, threatening thousands of at-risk species, study finds". The Independent. Retrieved February 28, 2022.
160. Anderson, E. W.; Scherzinger, R. J. (1975). "Improving quality of winter forage for elk by cattle grazing". J. Range MGT. 25 (2): 120–125. doi:10.2307/3897442. hdl:10150/646985. JSTOR 3897442. S2CID 53006161.
161. Knowles, C. J. (1986). "Some relationships of black-tailed prairie dogs to livestock grazing". Great Basin Naturalist. 46: 198–203.
162. Neel. L.A. 1980. Sage Grouse Response to Grazing Management in Nevada. M.Sc. Thesis. Univ. of Nevada, Reno.
163. Jensen, C. H.; et al. (1972). "Guidelines for grazing sheep on rangelands used by big game in winter". J. Range MGT. 25 (5): 346–352. doi:10.2307/3896543. hdl:10150/647438. JSTOR 3896543. S2CID 81449626.
164. Smith, M. A.; et al. (1979). "Forage selection by mule deer on winter range grazed by sheep in spring". J. Range MGT. 32 (1): 40–45. doi:10.2307/3897382. hdl:10150/646509. JSTOR 3897382.
165. Strassman, B. I. (1987). "Effects of cattle grazing and haying on wildlife conservation at National Wildlife Refuges in the United States" (PDF). Environmental MGT. 11 (1): 35–44. Bibcode:1987EnMan..11...35S. doi:10.1007/bf01867177. hdl:2027.42/48162. S2CID 55282106.
166. Holechek, J. L.; et al. (1982). "Manipulation of grazing to improve or maintain wildlife habitat". Wildlife Soc. Bull. 10: 204–210.
167. Dirzo, Rodolfo; Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R. (2022). "Circling the drain: the extinction crisis and the future of humanity". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 377 (1857). doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0378. PMC 9237743. PMID 35757873. The dramatic deforestation resulting from land conversion for agriculture and meat production could be reduced via adopting a diet that reduces meat consumption. Less meat can translate not only into less heat, but also more space for biodiversity . . . Although among many Indigenous populations, meat consumption represents a cultural tradition and a source of protein, it is the massive planetary monopoly of industrial meat production that needs to be curbed
168. Pena-Ortiz, Michelle (2021-07-01). "Linking aquatic biodiversity loss to animal product consumption: A review" (PDF). Freshwater and Marine Biology: 57.
169. Belsky, A. J.; et al. (1999). "Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States". J. Soil Water Cons. 54: 419–431.
170. Agouridis, C. T.; et al. (2005). "Livestock grazing management impact on streamwater quality: a review" (PDF). Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 41 (3): 591–606. Bibcode:2005JAWRA..41..591A. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03757.x. S2CID 46525184.
171. "Pasture, Rangeland, and Grazing Operations - Best Management Practices | Agriculture | US EPA". Epa.gov. 2006-06-28. Retrieved 2015-03-30.
172. "Grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas" (PDF). US Bureau of Land Management. 2006. p. 105.
173. Williams, C. M. (July 2008). "Technologies to mitigate enviromental [sic] impact of swine production". Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 37 (SPE): 253–259. doi:10.1590/S1516-35982008001300029. ISSN 1516-3598.
174. Key, N. et al. 2011. Trends and developments in hog manure management, 1998-2009. USDA EIB-81. 33 pp.
175. Regaldo, Luciana; Gutierrez, María F.; Reno, Ulises; Fernández, Viviana; Gervasio, Susana; Repetti, María R.; Gagneten, Ana M. (2017-12-22). "Water and sediment quality assessment in the Colastiné-Corralito stream system (Santa Fe, Argentina): impact of industry and agriculture on aquatic ecosystems". Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 25 (7): 6951–6968. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-0911-4. hdl:11336/58691. ISSN 0944-1344. PMID 29273985. S2CID 3685205.
176. "Ocean acidification". Journal of College Science Teaching. 41 (4): 12–13. 2012. ISSN 0047-231X. JSTOR 43748533.
177. DONEY, SCOTT C.; BALCH, WILLIAM M.; FABRY, VICTORIA J.; FEELY, RICHARD A. (2009). "Ocean Acidification". Oceanography. 22 (4): 16–25. doi:10.5670/oceanog.2009.93. hdl:1912/3181. ISSN 1042-8275. JSTOR 24861020.
178. Johnson, Ashanti; White, Natasha D. (2014). "Ocean Acidification: The Other Climate Change Issue". American Scientist. 102 (1): 60–63. doi:10.1511/2014.106.60. ISSN 0003-0996. JSTOR 43707749.
179. "Fisheries, Food Security, and Climate Change in the Indo-Pacific Region". Sea Change: 111–121. 2014.
180. Bousquet-Melou, Alain; Ferran, Aude; Toutain, Pierre-Louis (May 2010). "Prophylaxis & Metaphylaxis in Veterinary Antimicrobial Therapy". Conference: 5th International Conference on Antimicrobial Agents in Veterinary Medicine (AAVM)At: Tel Aviv, Israel – via ResearchGate.
181. British Veterinary Association, London (May 2019). "BVA policy position on the responsible use of antimicrobials in food producing animals" (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2020.
182. Massé, Daniel; Saady, Noori; Gilbert, Yan (4 April 2014). "Potential of Biological Processes to Eliminate Antibiotics in Livestock Manure: An Overview". Animals. 4 (2): 146–163. doi:10.3390/ani4020146. PMC 4494381. PMID 26480034. S2CID 1312176.
183. Sarmah, Ajit K.; Meyer, Michael T.; Boxall, Alistair B. A. (1 October 2006). "A global perspective on the use, sales, exposure pathways, occurrence, fate and effects of veterinary antibiotics (VAs) in the environment". Chemosphere. 65 (5): 725–759. Bibcode:2006Chmsp..65..725S. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.03.026. PMID 16677683.
184. Kumar, Kuldip; C. Gupta, Satish; Chander, Yogesh; Singh, Ashok K. (1 January 2005). "Antibiotic Use in Agriculture and Its Impact on the Terrestrial Environment". Advances in Agronomy. 87: 1–54. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(05)87001-4. ISBN .
185. Boeckel, Thomas P. Van; Glennon, Emma E.; Chen, Dora; Gilbert, Marius; Robinson, Timothy P.; Grenfell, Bryan T.; Levin, Simon A.; Bonhoeffer, Sebastian; Laxminarayan, Ramanan (29 September 2017). "Reducing antimicrobial use in food animals". Science. 357 (6358): 1350–1352. Bibcode:2017Sci...357.1350V. doi:10.1126/science.aao1495. PMC 6510296. PMID 28963240. S2CID 206662316.
186. ESVAC (European Medicines Agency) (October 2019). "Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 European countries in 2017: Trends from 2010 to 2017" (PDF). Retrieved 22 March 2020.
187. Torrella, Kenny (2023-01-08). "Big Meat just can't quit antibiotics". Vox. Retrieved 2023-01-23.
188. Boeckel, Thomas P. Van; Pires, João; Silvester, Reshma; Zhao, Cheng; Song, Julia; Criscuolo, Nicola G.; Gilbert, Marius; Bonhoeffer, Sebastian; Laxminarayan, Ramanan (20 September 2019). "Global trends in antimicrobial resistance in animals in low- and middle-income countries" (PDF). Science. 365 (6459): eaaw1944. doi:10.1126/science.aaw1944. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 31604207. S2CID 202699175.
189. Van Boeckel, Thomas P.; Brower, Charles; Gilbert, Marius; Grenfell, Bryan T.; Levin, Simon A.; Robinson, Timothy P.; Teillant, Aude; Laxminarayan, Ramanan (2015). "Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (18): 5649–5654. Bibcode:2015PNAS..112.5649V. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503141112. PMC 4426470. PMID 25792457. S2CID 3861749.
190. Bush, Karen; Courvalin, Patrice; Dantas, Gautam; Davies, Julian; Eisenstein, Barry; Huovinen, Pentti; Jacoby, George A.; Kishony, Roy; Kreiswirth, Barry N.; Kutter, Elizabeth; Lerner, Stephen A.; Levy, Stuart; Lewis, Kim; Lomovskaya, Olga; Miller, Jeffrey H.; Mobashery, Shahriar; Piddock, Laura J. V.; Projan, Steven; Thomas, Christopher M.; Tomasz, Alexander; Tulkens, Paul M.; Walsh, Timothy R.; Watson, James D.; Witkowski, Jan; Witte, Wolfgang; Wright, Gerry; Yeh, Pamela; Zgurskaya, Helen I. (2 November 2011). "Tackling antibiotic resistance". Nature Reviews Microbiology. 9 (12): 894–896. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2693. PMC 4206945. PMID 22048738. S2CID 4048235.
191. Tang, Karen L; Caffrey, Niamh P; Nóbrega, Diego; Cork, Susan C; Ronksley, Paul C; Barkema, Herman W; Polachek, Alicia J; Ganshorn, Heather; Sharma, Nishan; Kellner, James D; Ghali, William A (November 2017). "Restricting the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals and its associations with antibiotic resistance in food-producing animals and human beings: a systematic review and meta-analysis". The Lancet Planetary Health. 1 (8): e316–e327. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30141-9. PMC 5785333. PMID 29387833.
192. Shallcross, Laura J.; Howard, Simon J.; Fowler, Tom; Davies, Sally C. (5 June 2015). "Tackling the threat of antimicrobial resistance: from policy to sustainable action". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 370 (1670): 20140082. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0082. PMC 4424432. PMID 25918440. S2CID 39361030.
193. European Medicines Agency (4 September 2019). "Implementation of the new Veterinary Medicines Regulation in the EU".
194. OECD, Paris (May 2019). "Working Party on Agricultural Policies and Markets: Antibiotic Use and Antibiotic Resistance in Food Producing Animals in China". Retrieved 22 March 2020.
195. US Food & Drug Administration (July 2019). "Timeline of FDA Action on Antimicrobial Resistance". Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved 22 March 2020.
196. "WHO guidelines on use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals" (PDF).
197. European Commission, Brussels (December 2005). "Ban on antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed enters into effect".
198. "The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals" (PDF). Guidance for Industry (#209). 2012.
199. . AVMA. Archived from the original on 15 April 2017. Retrieved 14 March 2017.
200. University of Nebraska, Lincoln (October 2015). "Veterinary Feed Directive Questions and Answers". UNL Beef. Retrieved 14 March 2017.
201. Walker, Polly; Rhubart-Berg, Pamela; McKenzie, Shawn; Kelling, Kristin; Lawrence, Robert S. (June 2005). "Public health implications of meat production and consumption". Public Health Nutrition. 8 (4): 348–356. doi:10.1079/PHN2005727. ISSN 1475-2727. PMID 15975179. S2CID 59196.
202. Hafez, Hafez M.; Attia, Youssef A. (2020). "Challenges to the Poultry Industry: Current Perspectives and Strategic Future After the COVID-19 Outbreak". Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 7: 516. doi:10.3389/fvets.2020.00516. ISSN 2297-1769. PMC 7479178. PMID 33005639.
203. Greger, Michael (September 2021). "Primary Pandemic Prevention". American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. 15 (5): 498–505. doi:10.1177/15598276211008134. ISSN 1559-8276. PMC 8504329. PMID 34646097. S2CID 235503730.
204. Mehdi, Youcef; Létourneau-Montminy, Marie-Pierre; Gaucher, Marie-Lou; Chorfi, Younes; Suresh, Gayatri; Rouissi, Tarek; Brar, Satinder Kaur; Côté, Caroline; Ramirez, Antonio Avalos; Godbout, Stéphane (1 June 2018). "Use of antibiotics in broiler production: Global impacts and alternatives". Animal Nutrition. 4 (2): 170–178. doi:10.1016/j.aninu.2018.03.002. ISSN 2405-6545. PMC 6103476. PMID 30140756.
205. Rzymski, Piotr; Kulus, Magdalena; Jankowski, Maurycy; Dompe, Claudia; Bryl, Rut; Petitte, James N.; Kempisty, Bartosz; Mozdziak, Paul (January 2021). "COVID-19 Pandemic Is a Call to Search for Alternative Protein Sources as Food and Feed: A Review of Possibilities". Nutrients. 13 (1): 150. doi:10.3390/nu13010150. ISSN 2072-6643. PMC 7830574. PMID 33466241.
206. Onwezen, M. C.; Bouwman, E. P.; Reinders, M. J.; Dagevos, H. (1 April 2021). "A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat". Appetite. 159: 105058. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058. ISSN 0195-6663. PMID 33276014. S2CID 227242500.
207. Humpenöder, Florian; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Weindl, Isabelle; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Linder, Tomas; Popp, Alexander (May 2022). "Projected environmental benefits of replacing beef with microbial protein". Nature. 605 (7908): 90–96. Bibcode:2022Natur.605...90H. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04629-w. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 35508780. S2CID 248526001.
     News article: "Replacing some meat with microbial protein could help fight climate change". Science News. 5 May 2022. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
208. "Lab-grown meat and insects 'good for planet and health'". BBC News. 25 April 2022. Retrieved 25 April 2022.
209. Mazac, Rachel; Meinilä, Jelena; Korkalo, Liisa; Järviö, Natasha; Jalava, Mika; Tuomisto, Hanna L. (25 April 2022). "Incorporation of novel foods in European diets can reduce global warming potential, water use and land use by over 80%". Nature Food. 3 (4): 286–293. doi:10.1038/s43016-022-00489-9. hdl:10138/348140. PMID 37118200. S2CID 257158726. Retrieved 25 April 2022.
210. Leger, Dorian; Matassa, Silvio; Noor, Elad; Shepon, Alon; Milo, Ron; Bar-Even, Arren (29 June 2021). "Photovoltaic-driven microbial protein production can use land and sunlight more efficiently than conventional crops". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (26): e2015025118. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11815025L. doi:10.1073/pnas.2015025118. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8255800. PMID 34155098. S2CID 235595143.
211. "Plant-based meat substitutes - products with future potential | Bioökonomie.de". biooekonomie.de. Retrieved 25 May 2022.
212. Berlin, Kustrim CerimiKustrim Cerimi studied biotechnology at the Technical University in; biotechnology, is currently doing his PhD He is interested in the broad field of fungal; Artists, Has Collaborated in Various Interdisciplinary Projects with; Artists, Hybrid (28 January 2022). "Mushroom meat substitutes: A brief patent overview". On Biology. Retrieved 25 May 2022.
213. Lange, Lene (December 2014). "The importance of fungi and mycology for addressing major global challenges*". IMA Fungus. 5 (2): 463–471. doi:10.5598/imafungus.2014.05.02.10. ISSN 2210-6340. PMC 4329327. PMID 25734035. S2CID 13755426.
214. Gille, Doreen; Schmid, Alexandra (February 2015). "Vitamin B12 in meat and dairy products". Nutrition Reviews. 73 (2): 106–115. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuu011. ISSN 1753-4887. PMID 26024497.
215. Weston, A. R.; Rogers, R. W.; Althen, T. G. (1 June 2002). "Review: The Role of Collagen in Meat Tenderness". The Professional Animal Scientist. 18 (2): 107–111. doi:10.15232/S1080-7446(15)31497-2. ISSN 1080-7446.
216. Ostojic, Sergej M. (1 July 2020). "Eat less meat: Fortifying food with creatine to tackle climate change". Clinical Nutrition. 39 (7): 2320. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2020.05.030. ISSN 0261-5614. PMID 32540181. S2CID 219701817.
217. Mariotti, François; Gardner, Christopher D. (4 November 2019). "Dietary Protein and Amino Acids in Vegetarian Diets—A Review". Nutrients. 11 (11): 2661. doi:10.3390/nu11112661. ISSN 2072-6643. PMC 6893534. PMID 31690027.
218. Tsaban, Gal; Meir, Anat Yaskolka; Rinott, Ehud; Zelicha, Hila; Kaplan, Alon; Shalev, Aryeh; Katz, Amos; Rudich, Assaf; Tirosh, Amir; Shelef, Ilan; Youngster, Ilan; Lebovitz, Sharon; Israeli, Noa; Shabat, May; Brikner, Dov; Pupkin, Efrat; Stumvoll, Michael; Thiery, Joachim; Ceglarek, Uta; Heiker, John T.; Körner, Antje; Landgraf, Kathrin; Bergen, Martin von; Blüher, Matthias; Stampfer, Meir J.; Shai, Iris (1 July 2021). "The effect of green Mediterranean diet on cardiometabolic risk; a randomised controlled trial". Heart. 107 (13): 1054–1061. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2020-317802. ISSN 1355-6037. PMID 33234670. S2CID 227130240.
219. Craig, Winston John (December 2010). "Nutrition concerns and health effects of vegetarian diets". Nutrition in Clinical Practice. 25 (6): 613–620. doi:10.1177/0884533610385707. ISSN 1941-2452. PMID 21139125.
220. Zelman, Kathleen M.; MPH; RD; LD. "The Truth Behind the Top 10 Dietary Supplements". WebMD. Retrieved 2022-06-18.
221. Neufingerl, Nicole; Eilander, Ans (January 2022). "Nutrient Intake and Status in Adults Consuming Plant-Based Diets Compared to Meat-Eaters: A Systematic Review". Nutrients. 14 (1): 29. doi:10.3390/nu14010029. ISSN 2072-6643. PMC 8746448. PMID 35010904.
222. Boston, 677 Huntington Avenue; Ma 02115 +1495‑1000 (2012-09-18). "Vitamin K". The Nutrition Source. Retrieved 2022-06-18.{{}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ()
223. Fadnes, Lars T.; Økland, Jan-Magnus; Haaland, Øystein A.; Johansson, Kjell Arne (8 February 2022). "Estimating impact of food choices on life expectancy: A modeling study". PLOS Medicine. 19 (2): e1003889. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003889. ISSN 1549-1676. PMC 8824353. PMID 35134067.
224. "Quality of plant-based diet determines mortality risk in Chinese older adults". Nature Aging. 2 (3): 197–198. March 2022. doi:10.1038/s43587-022-00178-z. PMID 37118375. S2CID 247307240. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
225. Jafari, Sahar; Hezaveh, Erfan; Jalilpiran, Yahya; Jayedi, Ahmad; Wong, Alexei; Safaiyan, Abdolrasoul; Barzegar, Ali (6 May 2021). "Plant-based diets and risk of disease mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies". Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 62 (28): 7760–7772. doi:10.1080/10408398.2021.1918628. ISSN 1040-8398. PMID 33951994. S2CID 233867757.
226. Medawar, Evelyn; Huhn, Sebastian; Villringer, Arno; Veronica Witte, A. (12 September 2019). "The effects of plant-based diets on the body and the brain: a systematic review". Translational Psychiatry. 9 (1): 226. doi:10.1038/s41398-019-0552-0. ISSN 2158-3188. PMC 6742661. PMID 31515473.
227. Pieper, Maximilian; Michalke, Amelie; Gaugler, Tobias (15 December 2020). "Calculation of external climate costs for food highlights inadequate pricing of animal products". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 6117. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.6117P. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19474-6. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7738510. PMID 33323933. S2CID 229282344.
228. "Have we reached 'peak meat'? Why one country is trying to limit its number of livestock". the Guardian. 2023-01-16. Retrieved 2023-01-16.
229. Fuso Nerini, Francesco; Fawcett, Tina; Parag, Yael; Ekins, Paul (December 2021). "Personal carbon allowances revisited". Nature Sustainability. 4 (12): 1025–1031. Bibcode:2021NatSu...4.1025F. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00756-w. ISSN 2398-9629. S2CID 237101457.
230. "A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets | McKinsey". www.mckinsey.com. Retrieved 2022-06-18.
231. "These are the UK supermarket items with the worst environmental impact". New Scientist. Retrieved 14 September 2022.
232. Clark, Michael; Springmann, Marco; Rayner, Mike; Scarborough, Peter; Hill, Jason; Tilman, David; Macdiarmid, Jennie I.; Fanzo, Jessica; Bandy, Lauren; Harrington, Richard A. (16 August 2022). "Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (33): e2120584119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11920584C. doi:10.1073/pnas.2120584119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9388151. PMID 35939701.
233. van den Berg, Saskia W.; van den Brink, Annelien C.; Wagemakers, Annemarie; den Broeder, Lea (2022-01-01). "Reducing meat consumption: The influence of life course transitions, barriers and enablers, and effective strategies according to young Dutch adults". Food Quality and Preference. 100: 104623. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104623. ISSN 0950-3293. S2CID 248742133.
234. Collier, Elizabeth S.; Oberrauter, Lisa-Maria; Normann, Anne; Norman, Cecilia; Svensson, Marlene; Niimi, Jun; Bergman, Penny (2021-12-01). "Identifying barriers to decreasing meat consumption and increasing acceptance of meat substitutes among Swedish consumers". Appetite. 167: 105643. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105643. ISSN 0195-6663. PMID 34389377. S2CID 236963808.
235. "Up to 3,000 'peak polluters' given last chance to close by Dutch government". the Guardian. 2022-11-30. Retrieved 2023-01-16.
236. Fortuna, Carolyn (2022-09-08). "Is It Time To Start Banning Ads For Meat Products?". CleanTechnica. Retrieved 2022-11-01.
237. "Towards sustainable food consumption – SAPEA". Retrieved 2023-06-29.
238. "Virtual Water Trade" (PDF). Wasterfootprint.org. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
239. . Sustainabletable.org. Archived from the original on 5 June 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
240. US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122
241. ""Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFO, and Small CAFOs." Environmental Protection Agency Fact Sheet" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
242. US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122.23, 40 CFR 122.42
243. Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd cir 2005).
     National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 635 F. 3d 738 (5th Cir 2011).
244. Bradford, S. A., E. Segal, W. Zheng, Q. Wang, and S. R. Hutchins. 2008. Reuse of concentrated animal feeding operation wastewater on agricultural lands. J. Env. Qual. 37 (supplement): S97-S115.
245. Koelsch, Richard; Balvanz, Carol; George, John; Meyer, Dan; Nienaber, John; Tinker, Gene. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
246. "Ikerd, John. The Economics of CAFOs & Sustainable Alternatives". Web.missouri.edu. from the original on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
247. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 May 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
248. "Gurian-Sherman, Doug. CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations" (PDF). (PDF) from the original on 26 January 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
249. . FAO. Archived from the original on 3 September 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
250. McDonald, J. M. et al. 2009. Manure use for fertilizer and for energy. Report to Congress. USDA, AP-037. 53pp.
251. Shapouri, H. et al. 2002. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. USDA Agricultural Economic Report 814.
252. E.O. Wilson, The Future of Life, 2003, Vintage Books, 256 pages ISBN 
253. Strassman, B. I. 1987. Effects of cattle grazing and haying on wildlife conservation at National Wildlife Refuges in the United States. Environmental Mgt. 11: 35–44 .
254. Nicole, Wendee (2017-03-01). "CAFOs and Environmental Justice: The Case of North Carolina". Environmental Health Perspectives. 121 (6): a182–a189. doi:10.1289/ehp.121-a182. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 3672924. PMID 23732659.
255. Wing, S; Wolf, S (2017-03-01). "Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents". Environmental Health Perspectives. 108 (3): 233–238. doi:10.1289/ehp.00108233. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1637983. PMID 10706529.
256. Thorne, Peter S. (2017-03-01). "Environmental Health Impacts of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Anticipating Hazards—Searching for Solutions". Environmental Health Perspectives. 115 (2): 296–297. doi:10.1289/ehp.8831. ISSN 0091-6765. PMC 1817701. PMID 17384781.