Free chicken and crushed cricket

Will humanity be able to feed itself in the middle of the 21st century?

Already in the coming decades, humanity will have to face problems, on the successful solution of which its survival itself will depend. If the consequences of global warming are unlikely to lead to a disaster, in any case, until the end of the 21st century, then the depletion of resources, the lack of drinking water and food for the growing population of the planet will make itself felt much earlier. How much will we eat meat in 2050? What is more poisoning the environment: exhaust gases of cows or cars? Will we be able to do without super-mudtants? What is the connection between the fishing and epidemic of Ebola?

Radio Liberty made an overview of the most interesting facts mentioned in a volume report on the prospects of the production and consumption of animal products prepared for the beginning of 2015 by order of the US National Research Council.

----------

It is expected that by 2050 the population of the planet will grow by a third and will be from 9 to 10 billion people. The consumption of animal proteins, in other words, meat, fish, dairy products and eggs will grow much more significantly: humanity will need 73 percent more meat, fish and eggs and 58 percent more dairy products - compared to the 2011 consumption level.

The authors of the report note that developing countries will become the main engine of this growth: if the inhabitants of the USA, Europe and other developed countries are unlikely to consume even more meat and milk products, then the gradual growth of the well-being of the population of the poorest countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America will significantly affect the typical diet of their citizens. By 2023, the average INSTOMENT CONSUMENT OF MAS will reach 36.3 kg per person per year, that is, 2.4 kg more than in the current decade. The level of average consumption of meat and fish products by Europeans and Americans will almost not change, however, it is already on average 69 kilograms annually.

Ten billion inhabitants of the planet will need a lot of animal protein in the middle of the century. Will humanity manage to feed themselves in conditions of climate change and reduction of natural resources?

Greenhouse gas and leaf-ccinals

It is difficult for a city resident who is accustomed to seeing agricultural animals mainly in the form of cutlets or on TV, it is difficult to imagine how many resources are used to produce meat, milk and eggs. For livestocking needs - the placement of animals, grazing, the production of feed and so on - takes 30 percent of the entire surface of the land that is not covered with ice , more than for any other type of human activity. In industrial countries, half of all land available for agriculture is used to grow feed crops. The reason for 72 percent of all deforestation on Earth is livestock . Finally, more than a third of all fresh water consumed by mankind, again, goes to the production of animal protein (and 75 percent - for agriculture in general).

Cows on the Belarusian farm "intensive" production

Livestock not only needs grandiose natural resources, but also noticeably destroys the environment. The key cause of global warming is anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and here agricultural animals and birds almost do not lag behind factories and cars: the production of animal protein is responsible for 14.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet, including carbon dioxide - 9 percent of the global anthropogenic ejection, methane (as a product of decomposition of the remains animals) - 37 percent, nitrogen oxide (from manure and natural gas separation by animals) - 66 percent! For comparison: the emission of greenhouse gases, which comes to all world transport, cars, planes, ships and so on, only a little more - 15 percent.

Of course, the data on emissions vary greatly from the region to the region (the largest emission of greenhouse gases from animal husbandry - in subequatorial Africa, where animals graze in vast spaces and use the food inefficiently) and depend on the type of animals: in the issue of 77 percent of the gas climate, cattle are guilty, emissions from production from production from production Pork, and especially fish, bird and egg protein, is much lower.

We cannot afford to spend twice as much earth and fresh water on the production of animal protein, and the doubling of the emission of greenhouse gases will turn into a dramatic approximation of the environmental disaster. The only way out is to make livestock more effective. Is it possible? Having been, yes.

The use of new agricultural technologies in the United States made it possible to achieve amazing results. For the period from 1944 to 2007, milk yield to one cow accounted for: with an almost three -time reduction in the number of dairy cows (from 25.6 to 9.2 million heads) , milk production increased by 59 percent . Cows of meat breeds gained 0.72 kilograms of weight per day in 1997, and in 2007-already 1.18. In 1957, the weight of the 42-day broiler chicken was 540 grams, in 2010-five times more, 2.8 kilograms. Food conversion (the ratio of the weight of the feed to the increase in live weight) in the chicken decreased during the same time from 2.35 to 1.70. Modern American chicken carry 64 percent more eggs than their ancestors from the middle of the 20th century, and the eggs themselves became almost twice as difficult .

Russian pig farm

Effective production makes it possible to significantly reduce the use of resources. The dairy industry in the United States has reduced the use of feed by 77 percent over the past 30 years, land by 90 percent, and water by 65 percent. The release of greenhouse gases per 1 liter of milk fell by 63 percent . For the production of one kilogram of beef, today you need 19 percent less food, for 33 - land, for 12 - fresh water. Piano gas emissions based on one kilogram of beef in 2010 are 16 percent lower than in the late 70s of the last century. Pigovalism “green” even more: a kilogram of pork requires 41 percent less feed, 78 percent of the Earth, and the emission of greenhouse gases decreased by as much as 35 percent - the indicator is the best than the beef, but the worst than that of milk.

However, this is not about all American cows, pigs and chicken, but about the most infringed in rights. The authors of the report note that high -tech production is possible only in large commercial farms using intensive, far from the most sparing production methods. In other words, these are the very farms that seem to us in the Inhuman Factory of Death. But the Tanzani cow, freely grazing in the African savannah, eats no less than American, uses several times more than earth and food, but at the same time gives a hundred times less milk - these are objective data.

According to the latest data from climatologists, by the end of the 21st century, the average temperature on the planet will increase by the size between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees Celsius (and the shift is more likely to be more likely). It is very difficult to evaluate how exactly global warming will affect the ability to increase the pace of production of animal protein. It is clear that in some (today moderate and cold) regions the conditions for animal husbandry will become more favorable, and in other (subtropical and tropical) it will be impossible. Obviously, it will be easier to adapt to large intensive farms to new conditions, and traditional "green" farmers will suffer the most strongly.

At the same time, some experts express the fear that at the current pace of greenhouse gas release, climatic changes will become irreversible in 2050, and temperature growth can significantly accelerate. Ultimately, this will lead to a reduction in land and fresh water suitable for agrarian activities, which means to global hunger. The only way out is to think about sustainable development now: in use to livestock breeding, this means the widespread implementation of new technologies. Once we will have to choose between hunger and ethical principles. In addition, the authors of the report notice, those who are used to eating a lot of meat could think about the transition to a more balanced diet.

Ebola and stable antibiotics

Is animal husbandry dangerous for human health? And yes, and no.

Wild animals meat in West Africa is one of the possible sources of infection of Ebola fever

The epidemic of Ebola’s fever has become one of the most discussed news in the world in 2014, and one of its main reasons is the use of certain types of bats of bats and other wild animals in the residents of some Western Africa of meat. The authors of the report indicate that intensive fishing off the coast of West Africa in recent years has led to a noticeable reduction in the number of fish in coastal waters, which caused an increase in seafood prices in local markets. People who have lost the opportunity to purchase fish, had to look for other sources of animal protein - in the region, eating meat of wild animals has grown. It is difficult to say that it was this circumstance that led to one of the worst (in any case in the media presentation) in recent years of epidemics, but the fact that the use and production of animal protein is responsible for the spread of many extremely dangerous infections is not in doubt, to recall the bird flu or cow's rabies.

Here are fresh statistics: in 2011, 2.4 billion cases of human diseases were associated with the use of animal food, they led to 2.2 million deaths. Does this mean that, eating meat, you will inevitably get something terrible? No, unless you live in a poor African country. Control over meat and milk products in developed countries is established quite effectively, in addition, manufacturers themselves are interested in the health of their animals. Another common “horror story” is associated with this: a lot of antibiotics are used in animal husbandry (it is worth noting that viral infections are not treated with antibiotics, such as flu or Ebola fever), because of this, infection that are resistant to antimicrobial drugs appear.

However, according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the main cause of stable infections is not livestock at all, but excessively active use of antibiotics for the treatment of people, especially in hospital conditions. Antibiotics are some of the types of medicines that are most often prescribed to people, while, according to the organization, in about 50 percent of cases, the doctor prescribes antibiotics in a situation where they are either not needed at all or ineffective. At the same time, the creation of new antibiotics has seduced catastrophically: if in the mid-80s it was developed and approved for the use of 15 new classes of drugs in medicine, then since 2008-only three. The main reason is economic: the creation of a new antibiotic is a scientifically difficult and expensive task, the approval of the drug can drag on for years, in general, antibiotics for a pharmaceutical company give a relatively low return of investment. We have a relatively narrow antibiotic arsenal, which doctors use at any opportunity - the infections had enough time to develop resistance. According to experts, the contribution to the problem of livestock is hardly great.

"Frankenfish" and "five freedoms of the animal"

One of the most stable and conflicting food myths of recent years is the danger of eating GMOs, genetically modified organisms. Although the World Health Organization has issued a special report in which GMO products are recognized as not dangerous to human health, many are in no hurry to believe the conclusions of specialists. At the same time, food manufacturers use human ignorance, glue on products “without GMOs” exclusively for advertising purposes. Have you bought chicken breasts "without using GMOs"? You were deceived. In fact, a very significant share of plant foods (primarily soy and corn) today is really made of transgenic seeds. But genetically modified animal products have not yet received approval anywhere in the world, even in the USA, where the relevant laws are much softer than in Europe.

Norwegian aquafarma, where salmon is grown

And here is an example. The American company AquaboutNY created a transgenic Atlantic salmon - the CHAVOCHI genes, the largest representative of the Pacific salmon, were added to its genetic code. The growth rate of the hybrid is twice as high as that of ordinary salmon. Documents for the approval of this, as the journalists called it, Frankenfish, were submitted to the FDA regulatory body back in 1995: the application has been under consideration for twenty years ! During this time, Food and Drug Administration (the US Federal Agency, who, among other things, approved new food and medicines), received more than 1.5 million letters demanding to refuse transgenic salmon in registration. The arguments of opponents extend from the traditionally ignorant doubts of the safety of the use of GMOs to the care of the well -being of the hybrid fish themselves. And the Senator from Alaska Lisa Murkovsky suggested FDA to refuse Aquabounty simply because "do not joke with the mother of nature." The agency has not yet made any decision, but if the transgenic salmon is still allowed, this does not mean that someone will be able to purchase it: the lobby of environmental activists and defenders of animal rights has achieved that the 65 largest American network retailers promised-a monster fish on their shelves would not fall in any case.

The authors of the report remind of the so-called “green revolution” of the 60s in agriculture, during which the main cereals were genetically improved. This made it possible to increase their productivity so much that the polemic around the permissibility of using transgenic crops did not prevent man-made mutant plants and firmly be accumulated in agriculture. Apparently, today we are in a similar situation, and the transgenic food of animal origin will still sooner or later appear on our tables.

Fear of GMO is not the only sociocultural factor inhibiting the technological development of the production of animal protein. In the early 60s, simultaneously with the spread of intensive production in animal husbandry, people began to actively worry about the well-being of agricultural animals. A wide discussion of the inhumanity of the content of livestock and poultry, methods of the face of animals, led to the emergence of a report prepared by the special state commission of Great Britain. It formulated the principle of “five freedoms”, which were recommended to observe farmers in the content of animals: they should be able to freely stand and lie, turn around, clean themselves and stretch the limbs. Over time, the basic ethical principles of the well -being of agricultural animals were expanded: today we are also talking about freedom from fear, stress, discomfort, pain, injuries, diseases, hunger, thirst, as well as the provision of animals to show normal behavior, including social. Based on these ethical principles, some countries adopt formal standards for the placement, transportation, slaughter of animals, these rules are especially strict in the EU, where, in particular, several common and effective systems for the content of livestock and poultry in farms are banned. However, even where formal strict rules for treating animals are not accepted, manufacturers have to reckon with the wishes of consumers.

Production of eggs in Shanghai. This method of placing laying layers is prohibited in many countries of the world

A typical example is the production of eggs. In the 50s, the technology of keeping the layers appeared (today there are about 5 billion in the world) in small wire cells placed over the other in several rows. This made it possible to limit the distribution of parasitic diseases, the collection of eggs simplified, and in general significantly increased production efficiency. However, chicken in tight cells became one of the main archetypes of inhuman treatment of animals (including in Russia - see Victor Polevin’s story “The Recluse and the Six -Pacel” in agriculture. Under public pressure, this technology was officially banned in the EU and New Zealand. Residents of Australia refuse to buy eggs of “non -free chicken”, and this forced manufacturers to use other methods of keeping layers even in the absence of formal restrictions. Nine out of ten Americans are not yet thinking about the conditions in which the egg they bought, but the largest egg producer in the USA, United Egg Porducers, refused to use cells, without waiting for the public to take this issue seriously. The leader among the egg consumers, Uniliver, said that by 2020 there would be exclusively eggs demolished by “free” chicken.

Если страх перед ГМО по большому счету – следствие невежества, то забота о благополучии животных (даже тех, кому предстоит попасть на ваш стол) – совершенно естественное проявление человечности. Однако обстоятельства ставят нас перед непростым выбором: “зеленые” фермы, где животные содержатся в относительной свободе, где применяются традиционные фермерские экстенсивные технологии, просто не смогут удовлетворить растущие потребности человечества. Прокормить 10 миллиардов человек – сложная задача, ее решение может потребовать определенного этического цинизма. Но есть или не есть мясо – личный выбор каждого.

Срок годности и мусорное ведро

Нам придется научиться производить больше еды, но не помешало бы научиться ее экономить. Из-за одних только законодательно установленных норм сроков хранения, треть из достигших магазинных полок пищевых продуктов отправляются в мусорное ведро. Но еда превращается в мусор не только на этом этапе – пищевые продукты теряются на всех стадиях производства и потребления, не в последнюю очередь в тот момент, когда вы оставляете на тарелке недоеденную порцию.

Пищевые отходы возле рынка в Пешаваре, Пакистан

Ежегодно в мире тем или иным образом попадает в отходы 30 процентов злаков, 40-50 процентов корнеплодов, от 20 до 30 процентов растительного масла и мясомолочных продуктов, 35 процентов рыбы. В целом, треть из 1,3 миллиарда производимых ежегодно тонн еды уходит на помойку.

Если разложить все эти пищевые отходы на земле, они займут 1,4 миллиарда гектаров – это примерно треть площади всех сельскохозяйственных земель на планете. Выбросы при производстве этой так и не съеденной пищи составляют 3,3 гигатонны углекислого газа – если представить себе страну, которая ответственна за такое количество CO2, она оказалась бы на третьем месте в мире, пропустив вперед только Китай и США. Ежегодно выбрасываемые человечеством пищевые отходы отравляют 250 кубических километров воды.

В докладе отмечается, что основные потери продуктов питания в развитых странах происходят на последнем этапе, то есть на той стадии, когда продукты попадают к потребителям. Разве это не повод задуматься?

Технологии и сверчки

Основной вывод авторов доклада: животноводство нуждается в новых технологиях не меньше, чем медицина или исследования космоса. Без новых высокоэффективных и экологичных систем производства, без новых лекарств и генной инженерии человечество быстро истощит скудные ресурсы планеты, но все равно не сможет прокормить себя. Но все же не стоит рассчитывать, что продуктовую безопасность обеспечат ученые: каждому стоит задуматься о возможности сокращения потребления мяса и о том, как много пищевых отходов ежедневно попадает на помойку.

Французский деликатес со сверчками

Напоследок одна хорошая новость из доклада американских исследователей. На Земле есть животное, далеко обгоняющее и коров, свиней и куриц по способности превращать корм в питательный белок. Это существо – обыкновенный сверчок. Кроме того, сверчок содержит множество ценных витаминов и микроэлементов и съедобен на 80 процентов – в этом отношении он тоже опережает традиционных сельскохозяйственных животных. Потенциал насекомых в обеспечении продуктовой безопасности человечества признан ООН. Что вы съедите с большим удовольствием – стейк из коровы-мутанта или пельмени с толчеными сверчками? К середине века, вероятно, придется привыкнуть лакомиться и тем и другим.