Is pastoralism the solution to the problems food security and animal agriculture

More reading here, didn't have enough time to work this into the review: https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:8319/stavi_etal_2022_final.pdf

Advantages of pastoralism

The FAO loves pastoralists

• Because herders travel with their livestock and work knowledgeably with nature to access water and forage, production inputs are low relative to outputs.
• Livestock can also be moved to fallow lands and fields to make use of crop residues for feed and to distribute animal manure as fertilizer – recycling nutrients as part of a circular bioeconomy.
• Traditionally, pastoralists have a number of practices that can keep environments in balance, maintaining soil health and biodiversity.
• Does not have disadvantages of industrial animal agriculture
  • like Feed-food competition (though pasturelands might compete with land for crops that humans can eat).
  • Animals are more likely to have genetic diversity than CAFO breeds and be locally adapted
• Can sometimes be good for forest health
  • Pastoralists in Europe remove blackberries that prevent the regrowth of larger trees.

Scaling pastoralism is not a solution

However, pastoralism is not a silver bullet that sustainably meets the world demand for meat. The key issue with pastoralism is that is takes large amounts of land. Animal agriculture takes up lots of land but provide few calories.
It is often problematic where this new pasture land comes from. Pastoralism is the main driver of deforestation in the Amazon

Intensive pastoralism in cultures where livestock denote status might create severe status inequality

• Pastoralism is often the only possible agriculture in the areas where it is practiced (Dong et al., (2011)^[1]; (Blench, 2001)), as such it can be vitally important for the communities there.
• in Africa pastoralism contributes 10 to 44% of gross domestic product (African Union, 2010) supporting 200 million households (Blench, 2001).

Pastoralists exist on a knife's edge of food security

Additionally, even if we believe claims that current pastoralist systems have beneficial effects on the environment and food security, this does not mean that these systems will not degrade the environment when scaled up.

• Additionally, the food security of pastoralists can be extremely unstable in the face of government pressures to feed growing populations and economic growth, coupled with climate change. Dong et al., outlines 10 such case studies from across the world
  • In the Sahel region of Africa, when pastoralist farming was greatly expanded in the 1960 to fuel economic growth, overgrazing contributed to a decade long drought that caused famine and starvation for many.
  • The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau of China has become degraded by large increase in demand for sheep and yak products caused by rapid population growth in the area^[2]. About 26% is currently severely degraded to what is termed “black beach” or “black-soil-land”, where land is bare during the winter and only sparsely covered by annual weeds or poisonous plants in the summer. Increased warming due to climate change also shortens the growing season so the land is less able to rebound.
  • Pressure to increase production of sheep and cattle in Australia has led to pastoralists/ranchers to clear local vegetation faster than it can grow back. This has

Pastoral systems are worse for the environment

Pastoral systems are also generally worse for the environment in terms of deforestation and GHGs (though intensive systems generate concentrated waste which is also really bad).

Because pastoral animals are less productive than factory farmed animals, they generate more GHG per head (FAO, 2018a). Intensive (grain-fed) beef systems require 45% less land and emit 30% less GHG than grass-fed beef systems to produce a kilogr

• grazing is a major cause of soil erosion

References