Choice matters: The environmental costs of producing meat, seafood

June 11, 2018, University of Washington
Credit: University of Washington

Which food type is more environmentally costly to produce—livestock, farmed seafood, or wild-caught fish?

The answer is, it depends. But in general, industrial beef production and farmed catfish are the most taxing on the environment, while small, wild-caught fish and farmed mollusks like oysters, mussels and scallops have the lowest environmental impact, according to a new analysis.

The study will appear online June 11 in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, and its authors believe it is the most comprehensive look at the environmental impacts of different types of animal protein production.

"From the consumer's standpoint, choice matters," said lead author Ray Hilborn, a University of Washington professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. "If you're an environmentalist, what you eat makes a difference. We found there are obvious good choices, and really obvious bad choices."

The study is based on nearly a decade of analysis, in which the co-authors reviewed hundreds of published life-cycle assessments for various types of animal protein production. Also called a "cradle-to-grave" analysis, these assessments look at environmental impacts associated with all stages of a product's life.

Of the more than 300 such assessments that exist for animal production, the authors selected 148 that were comprehensive and not considered too "boutique," or specialized, to inform their new study.

As decisions are made about how food production expands through agricultural policies, trade agreements and environmental regulations, the authors note a "pressing need" for systematic comparisons of environmental costs across animal food types.

"I think this is one of the most important things I've ever done," Hilborn said. "Policymakers need to be able to say, 'There are certain food production types we need to encourage, and others we should discourage.'"

Broadly, the study uses four metrics as a way to compare environmental impacts across the many different types of animal food production, including farm-raised seafood (called aquaculture), livestock farming and seafood caught in the wild. The four measures are: energy use, emissions, potential to contribute excess nutrients—such as fertilizer—to the environment, and the potential to emit substances that contribute to acid rain.

The researchers compared environmental impacts across food types by using a standard amount of 40 grams of protein—roughly the size of an average hamburger patty, and the daily recommended protein serving. For example, they calculated how much greenhouse gas was produced per 40 grams of protein across all food types, where data were available.

"This method gives us a really consistent measurement people can relate to," Hilborn said.

The analysis showed clear winners that had low environmental impacts across all measures, including farmed shellfish and mollusks, and capture fisheries such as sardines, mackerel and herring. Other capture fish choices with relatively low impact are whitefish like pollock, hake and the cod family. Farmed salmon also performed well. But the study also illuminated striking differences across animal proteins, and the researchers advise that consumers must decide what environmental impacts are most important to them when selecting their food choices.

Some of the additional findings include:

  • Overall, livestock production used less energy than most forms of seafood aquaculture. Farmed catfish, shrimp and tilapia used the most energy, mainly because constant water circulation must be powered by electricity.
  • Catfish aquaculture and beef produce about 20 times more greenhouse gases than farmed mollusks, small capture fisheries, farmed salmon and chicken.
  • Mollusk aquaculture—such as oysters, mussels and scallops—actually absorb excess nutrients that are harmful to ecosystems. In contrast, livestock beef production rated poorly in this measure, and capture fisheries consistently scored better than aquaculture and livestock because no fertilizer is used.
  • Because livestock emit methane in their manure, they performed poorly in the acid rain category. Farmed mollusks again performed the best, with small capture fisheries and salmon aquaculture close behind.
  • For capture fisheries, fuel to power fishing boats is the biggest factor, and differences in fuel use created a large range of performance in the greenhouse gas category. Using a purse sein net to catch small schooling fish like herring and anchovy uses the least fuel and, perhaps surprisingly, pot fisheries for lobster use a great deal of fuel and thus have a high impact per unit of protein produced. Dragging nets through water, known as trawling, is quite variable and the impact appears to be related to the abundance of the fish. Healthy stocks take less fuel to capture.
  • When compared to other studies of vegetarian and vegan diets, a selective diet of aquaculture and wild capture fisheries has a lower environmental than either of the plant-based diets.

In the future, the researchers plan to look at biodiversity impacts as another way to measure environmental costs. The analysis also mentions a range of other environmental impacts such as water demand, pesticide use, antibiotic use and soil erosion that were addressed in some of the studies they reviewed, but not consistently enough to summarize in the study.

Explore further: Farming fish saves land: study

More information: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (2018). DOI: 10.1002/fee.1822

Related Stories

Farming fish saves land: study

April 30, 2018

To satisfy the protein demands of an anticipated nearly 10 billion people by 2050, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and researchers around the world estimate current animal production will need ...

Can farmed fish feed the world sustainably?

September 14, 2016

The world's population is expected to soar by 2.5 billion people by 2050, bringing a host of global challenges – including how to feed so many hungry mouths.

Recommended for you

4 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Porgie
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2018
Steak is much better for you than Tofu. And tastes better too. There are too many other places to get benefits before attacking our food. This kind of approach is so lame with miles of benefits can be obtained elsewhere with less impact on quality of life. Its the one thing they always ignore lets make life tough for the environment sake. Bah. The American farmer puts more NOX in the atmosphere than all the power plants in America combined, No talk of changing that is there?
PTTG
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2018
Uh, yeah, that's the point of the article. Changing our food supply would change the way farmers farm.

So you're of the opinion that reasonable people who want to preserve Earth's habitability are pointedly ignoring big improvements that can be made without sacrifice, right? Why would they do that, and why do you believe that is so?
SURFIN85
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2018
We're getting closer to developing cheap and plentiful, not to mention nutritious, artifical beef so everyone is a winner okay? Less acid rain, less run-off, we can the leave the got-damn fish alone, and give the earth a break.
TrollBane
not rated yet Jun 15, 2018
Porgie, are those benefits in Roman, nautical or statute miles? Or did you just pull it out of your methane producer?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.