How much energy does it take to get meat on your table?
Chloe Juliana Warrell
News Article: https://www.futurity.org/energy-animal-products-food-3263722/
Journal Article: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae524
Introduction
Agricultural systems, including livestock production, require energy to pump out their immense amount of products and feed society. Agrifood systems (AFSs) have been relying more and more on fossil fuels for their energy needs since the green revolution, which comes with environmental, economic, and food security risks. Rasul et al. set out to analyze the energy return on energy investment (EROEI), where a value over 1 indicates that we are receiving more energy than it takes to produce it, and a value less than 1 means it costs more energy than is produced in calories. Over their study, they found the differences in return of energy between food processing, fertilizer, and livestock processing/production. The amount of energy it costs to produce this food is important because livestock products are responsible for nearly 60% of the AFS energy footprint while only contributing 18% of the calories (Rasul et al.), so investigating a global model for food energy output versus energy input is valuable for the future.
News Article
In the journal article, “How Much Energy does it take to get meat on your table?”, they discuss the consequences of agriculture on the environment, criminalizing the usage of fossil fuels. They ridicule agriculture for its inefficiency and its low caloric products. Additionally, they emphasize the fact that animal products are responsible for 60% of the energy footprint while only contributing 18% of the global calories.
The article explains the model Rasul et al. had created, where if the food produces less energy than it took to make it, the value is less than 1. They go into specific detail of the model type, EXIOBASE, used to estimate the energy use of different sectors of the economy (Norwegian University of Science and Technology). As well as FABIO, which contains similar information about production, trade, and consumption of food. They mention how global agricultural EROEIs have increased since 1995, giving a halo to the news. They also briefly mention the geographical differences in energy efficiency, but do not go into detail. Finally, the article wraps up the topic by presenting the importance of this: the food security and human dependency on fossil fuels. If we depend on a nonrenewable energy source, food abundance would drop off.
Journal Article
The journal article, “Energy input and food output: The energy imbalance across regional agrifood systems”, by Rasul et al. presents the energy return on energy investment (EROEI) of global agriculture industries, and their implications in the corresponding societies. They begin by explaining how agrifood systems use external energy inputs (EEIs) to do practically everything (produce, make fertilizer, machinery, storage, cooling, and transport are considered when calculating this number. Although these technologies have served humans in the past and have helped feed an increasing population, the dependency on fossil fuels is not sustainable. The authors point out that AFSs are so globalized that the environmental impacts are a shared burden associated with the production and use of food.
Thus, the authors set out to create a model to predict the ratio of calorie content of food for humans to energy required to produce it. This energy return on energy investment (EROEI) ratio tells if the human nutrition pay out is better (a value of >1), or if the required more energy than it produced (a value of <1). Significant findings were that the global EROEI score has increased from a 0.68 in 1995 to a 0.91 in 2019, indicating that agriculture has gotten slightly more energy efficient.
Another conclusion that was interesting was that the EROEI varies depending on location and on country GDP. Low income countries have a higher energy output per unit land, increasing their EROEI, whereas highly industrialized AFSs require more EEIs and act as an energy sink. They also recognized various diets and cultures and how they can affect a food system. Recognizing how energy is distributed in our agricultural systems helps to create preventative measures. Finding alternative methods for energy production other than fossil fuels is imperative to maintaining human health.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology. “How much energy does it take to get meat on your table?”
7 January 2025, https://www.futurity.org/energy-animal-products-food-3263722/.
Rasul, Kajwan, et al. “Energy input and food output: The energy imbalance across regional agrifood systems.”
PNAS Nexus, vol. 3, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae524.
hi Chloe! Thank you for sharing! this was a very interesting blog post. I thought the difference in energy efficiency between low-income and highly industrialized countries was really interesting. It was surprising that countries with less industrialized agricultural systems can actually have a higher EROEI because they use fewer external energy inputs. It makes me wonder if increasing technology and industrialization in agriculture always makes a food system more efficient, or if there is a point where it actually starts making it less efficient. Also, on the crop side of agriculture, did either source provide specific examples of crops that require particularly high amounts of energy to produce? Lastly, did the articles present any potential solutions for reducing our dependency on fossil fuels?
ReplyDeleteHey Chloe, this was a very interesting article that is quite relevant to our lives today, especially with a lot of discussion online in terms of different diets and the environment. Your article also brought up a lot of different topics that could be further researched, such as the impact of more vegetarian or vegan diets on emissions, as well as how the food waste culture in the United States especially impacts the return of caloric output. Was there any other study you found taking food waste into account for this return? I have not researched other countries' cultures as much, but I wonder if a country's GDP has an impact on its food wastage.
ReplyDeleteI did not come across any other study that looked into food waste, as I was also really interested in this! I want to work in agriculture one day, so finding more sustainable ways to get food on the table is something I am interested in. Discovering the differences between country GDP is also very intriguing.
DeleteHi Chloe! I thought it was really interesting that animal products account for such a large share of the energy footprint while contributing a much smaller share of calories. I also liked how you pointed out that EROEI differs depending on location and a country’s level of industrialization. Do you think reducing the energy used in livestock production would have a bigger impact than simply encouraging people to consume less meat?
ReplyDeleteHi Natalie! Great point in reducing livestock production energy costs to make a difference in the EROEI. However, from my understanding, livestock production actually produces a small amount of the energy footprint. Things like manufacturing and transport take up most of the footprint. Not saying there is not room to grow, but also, there are bigger fish to fry in this energy climate.
DeleteHello Chloe! It's cool that this study was able to estimate the energy input across the world. I do wonder how this information was gathered for the databases you mentioned (EXIOBASE and FABIO), and what the limitations were for getting this information. Were there any places that they couldn't gather information? Is the information gathering process different or more difficult for more or less industrialized AFSs? I also wonder if the journal article presented any possible solutions beyond diet changes. Are there things we can do to reduce the EROEI of animal products? Also, I was surprised that the global EROEI has increased and that agriculture has become slightly more efficient. I would think that globally we are still becoming more industrialized and therefore requiring more EEIs, so do you know what's been done that lowered this number?
ReplyDeleteHello Chloe, nice blog post! I'm curious about why the EROEI being higher from third-world countries with lower GDPs. Does it have something to do with the agricultural practices used in those countries? I would guess that places like the United States use a lot of energy to produce nutrient deficient foods like Dorito's, but I'm not sure if that's accounted for in the study. Definitely something worth thinking about!
ReplyDeleteHi Jackson! From my understanding, the EROEI is higher in countries with lower GDPs because they have less processed food and more of a "farm to table" style. Because of this, it requires less energy to put food on the table. Seeing how the green revolution has impacted certain areas of the world rather than others is certainly interesting.
DeleteHi Chloe! I really enjoyed reading this post, I enjoyed the part where it was touched on how animal products and byproducts contribute to the higher carbon footprint which clears up the confusion as to why the less industrialized countries have a higher EROEI, which I thought before was the opposite! Do you think that if they added more industrial technologies, that it would lower due to higher efficiency or would that increase it overall due to there not being heavy industrial tech before?
ReplyDeleteHi Chloe, this is a super interesting topics to me! I did some research for another class last year on CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) and learned about the same energy consumption and environmental impacts these industries can have. With that being said, I am interested to know your thoughts on how optimizing this technology could lower energetic costs, whether that be with different machinery, other ways to process an animal, or more restrictions on the energy resources these operations are allowed to access.....
ReplyDeleteHi Chloe, great job summarizing these articles! Animal agriculture has been a point of contention among environmental activists for some time, both due to its carbon footprint and concerns for animal welfare. The correlation between GDP and EROEI is interesting as well, and I think it speaks to the ways in which the global south has been and continues to be exploited, with wealthier countries funneling resources out of these developing countries and not investing back into them. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on long-term solutions to the energy use of animal agriculture. Could renewable energy provide a solution, or is it better to just rework the system and make it more energy-efficient? How could this be done without disrupting the entire supply chain? Or would it require significant shutdowns?
ReplyDeleteHi Chloe! I thought the article and your blog post both raised interesting topics. As someone who used to be a pescatarian, I am wondering whether this was one of the diets the journal article discussed when you mention the authors recognizing other diets/cultures and their impacts. Your mention of high EROEI levels in low-income countries also stood out to me. I was wondering what a good solution to this would be, since industrializing these countries' systems would only increase their EEIs. Do the news and journal articles mention anything about food inequality or any possible solutions in low-income countries? Or do they discuss (if they discuss any solutions) mainly ideas for industrialized countries?
ReplyDeleteHi Chloe! I really liked how you explained EROEI because I had never really thought about how much energy goes into producing food beyond just the energy used on the farm. I thought it was especially interesting that the study did not account for food waste. It makes me wonder how different the EROEI would look if the energy used to produce food that ultimately gets thrown away was included. Since the U.S. has such a large food waste problem, I feel like reducing waste could be another important way to improve the efficiency of our food systems without necessarily having to completely change what people eat. Do you think including food waste in the model would significantly change the results?
ReplyDeleteHello. Great work! I was curious about when you say, "Significant findings were that the global EROEI score has increased from a 0.68 in 1995 to a 0.91 in 2019, indicating that agriculture has gotten slightly more energy efficient," do you know specifically what changes in agriculture have been made? Were there new laws and regulations that were passed to help the environment? I am assuming people didn't want to change their ways of agriculture but it may have been forced. I would say on top of that with lower income countries does this impact how they do agriculture do to them not having enough resources? I think the article makes a good point that the energy of food consumption is different based on country. Especially when certain countries have different religious views which may impact what they consume.
ReplyDeleteHi Chloe! I thought your blog post was extremely interesting. Honestly, by the title alone, I was very intrigued as I was curious what particular aspect of the meat industry was tied in to the class since I do not know much about it. I think it is really cool to talk about. Do you think there could be a policy implementation pipeline that could go down in the future to talk about how much energy should be allocated relative to true consumer need of meat? I recall that the meat industry has been overproducing what we consume so I would be interested to see a nice connected argument made in that aspect.
ReplyDeleteHi Chloe, this really is a fascinating topic that is so relevant with agriculture and livestock being responsible for significant amounts of methane gas production. With there existing so many methods of waste in the raising and distribution of meat products, I totally agree that the article only looks at this issue from one angle instead of the whole picture. With so much value invested in one of the largest industries in our society, I wonder what parameters are set into place to address the accuracy of the data collected and the true energy expenditures by these global models. If there is an incentive to further profit, how can we truly be sure that the reliance on fossil fuels in meat production is actually decreasing without an apparent or realistic alternative?
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you pointed out the difference in how the news article focused on meat production, while the journal looked at agrifood systems as a whole. I think that distinction is important because it can make the study seem like it is only criticizing the meat industry when the actual research examines many different parts of the food system. I also found the geographic differences in EROEI interesting. And how lower income countries can have higher energy returns. Do you think including these regional differences in the news article would have changed how readers viewed the studys conclusions?
ReplyDeleteHi Chloe, I was curious if the paper mentioned anything about the Haber Bosch process and its impact on EROEI given that it's such a widely used, important process for supporting mass agriculture. Thank you for the post!
ReplyDeleteNice writing, I am a fan of how you wrote it- very detailed. The difference between the journal and the new article was really suprising, they almost seemed like different topics. Seems like a really important thing. Was there any further breakdown of types of meats and the energy required in the news article due to it focusing solely on meat?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was really interesting that livestock products account for nearly 60% of the energy used in agricultural food systems but only contribute 18% of global calories. I knew meat production required a lot of resources, but I didn’t realize how inefficient it was compared to other agricultural products. I also found it surprising that lower-income countries tend to have higher energy returns than more industrialized countries, especially since advanced technology is usually associated with greater efficiency. It makes me wonder whether making agriculture more sustainable requires changing how we produce food or changing what we eat. Do you think reducing meat consumption would be a more effective solution than investing in renewable energy sources for livestock production?
ReplyDeleteHI Chloe! I loved your blog post. I was interested in how you mentioned low-income countries can have a higher EROEI while industrialized agricultural systems can act as energy sinks. Do you think countries becoming more industrialized could decrease their EROEI as they start using more advanced, energy-sucking technologies?
ReplyDeleteHi Stella, yes I believe that as countries further develop they decrease their EROEI, because more energy is being used to produce food and get it dispersed through the community. Another thing to consider is how industrialized a place is and far the food needs to go before it gets on a table.
DeleteHi Chloe, I think your rating of the article is accurate. On another note, I think that while it is important to quantify the energy expenditure and carbon footprint of livestock, it is also important to consider that food is not just calories. I think the idea that animal protein should be demonized as bad for the environment neglects the real problem of bad farming and waste management practices. There are many points in both of these areas where efficiency goes down because there is not enough investment in technology that could minimize waste. If animal protein were made a luxury then I would expect illnesses to increase in lower income cohorts, because they are still an important source of complex nutrients that are not perfectly replicable by laboratories. I think the article could have perhaps explored more of the avoidable inefficiencies of livestock farming rather than placing a target on it
ReplyDelete