Talk:Environmental impacts of animal agriculture/Archive 4

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Sssara7 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Which countries should be mentioned in the greenhouse gas section?
and others interested in this section. I think the section is rather long and could do with shortening and summarizing better. As this is a global article we should not say too much about specific countries.

I am more familiar with GHG than other aspects of this article. While the US might be exceptional in other sections I think New Zealand should be the only country mentioned in this section as it is so unusual as a rich country in the proportion of national GHG from livestock. Info about US meat GHG should be put in Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States I think as it is probably not so different from other countries as a share of total GHG.

Your thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Chidgk1 I think most people are aware of the stark difference between the percentage of GHG emissions from meat in developed countries and developing countries. If you think of an alternative way of communicating that, I think it is perfectly fine to remove the USA as an example. If this you believe it is completely unnecessary to communicate this difference please explain why. Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the stark difference between the ABSOLUTE GHG emissions from meat in developed countries and developing countries but have you got a cite for "the stark difference between the PERCENTAGE of GHG emissions from meat in developed countries and developing countries”? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Or am I misunderstanding what percentage you are referring to? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk1 you understood me well Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk1 I don't have the sources in an easily presentable manner. I removed the USA source because you have convinced me. Can you add the absolute GHG from meat into this article, please? thanks. Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk1 actually, looking at the article, I can't tell if developed countries such as the USA are that much more exceptional or not. Why is the global GHG livestock emissions larger (at 18%) than the agricultural emissions (at 12%)? If I am reading this correctly, one of these studies has a fault, right? Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The cites are rather old - I need to try and find info in the 6th Assessment. Report - feel free to chase me if I forget Chidgk1 (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk1 Is the difference just due to the difference between agriculture and livestock (because not all meat is livestock and not all livestock is meat)? I am this because the agricultural estimates occur between the livestock estimates and neither seem to change too much. Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends whether wild fish are counted as meat. When my renaming proposal below is accepted or rejected I suppose we should add a sentence or 2 explaining the scope of the article Chidgk1 (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Duh no I need to consider this Chidgk1 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When the AR6 synthesis report comes out hopefully very soon that might be a good cite https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/ Chidgk1 (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chidgk1 I agree Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Should “Variation of GHG percentage by country” be deleted?
I looked into this a little but could not find much sensible to say beyond that US and Brazil are largest beef producers and consume most per person. And that New Zealand is unusual among rich countries in that almost half its GHG is from agriculture.

So I suggest we just delete it as it is pretty poor at the moment - what do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Deleted - anyway that nice Mr Gates is fixing New Zealand Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed "further reading" section
I've removed the "further reading" section. I don't think it's adding value. If any of these publications are great they should be used for in-line citations.


 * Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Alliance Court Decision on Regulation of CAFOs Congressional Research Service
 * Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Alliance Court Decision on Regulation of CAFOs Congressional Research Service
 * Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Alliance Court Decision on Regulation of CAFOs Congressional Research Service
 * Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Alliance Court Decision on Regulation of CAFOs Congressional Research Service

EMsmile (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be plural for impacts?
I think the title should be plural for impacts, so "Environmental impacts of animal agriculture" - or why are we saying "impact" instead of "impacts"? EMsmile (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Not much difference in British English - renamed - anyone dislikes feel free to rename back Chidgk1 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning the issue of greenhouse gas emissions in the lead
I think the lead ought to include information about greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) from animal agriculture. For that purpose, I started by copying some relevant statements from the main text to the lead. I know this is not ideal but I do think it's better than nothing (the current lead says almost nothing about GHGE so far). So rather than removing it, Jarfuls of Tweed, why not rather reword it so that it becomes a better summary? This is what I had copied (it could easily be shortened if you think it's too long, and reworded if you don't like that it copies statements from the main text): Cows, sheep and other ruminants digest their food by enteric fermentation, and their burps are the main 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. According to a 2022 study quickly stopping animal agriculture would provide half the GHG emission reduction needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 2 °C. The global food system is responsible for one-third of the global anthropogenic GHG emissions, of which meat accounts for nearly 60%. Mitigation options for reducing methane emission from livestock are 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.. EMsmile (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @EMsmile I don't think that is good writing form (and it makes the introduction frustratingly long to read because they are not necessarily here at this article to learn about its effects on GHGs rather than biodiversity). if we want to have a summary of a section, it should be at the beginning of that section rather than in the introduction. The introduction is usually meant to summarize a list of topics that will be told, and (if applicable) add any information that applies to the entire article (e.g. "animal agriculture is used to develop meat, wool,...). Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Jarfuls of Tweed, you might not know the Wikipedia policy for the lead section. You call it an introduction but we call it the lead and it's meant to be a summary of the article. About 500-600 words long, 4 paragraphs and to summarise all the main sections of the article. Crafting the lead is not easy but very important as many people don't read further than the lead. A description of the lead is here: WP:LEAD. So yes, biodiversity issues is also important and it also needs to be briefly summarised in the lead. Many of Wikipedia's article's leads are not good yet. Let's work on making this one a good one. EMsmile (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @EMsmile okay, I was unaware of the lead policy. I am not a huge fan of it, but I will allow you to work on it without reverting your changes. Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've put it back into the lead (but shorter). This is work in progress. Let's try to make the lead a good summary of the article. Remember: the first paragraph of the lead is so important because it's what people read and hear when they do a Google search or ask Alexa or Siri about this topic... EMsmile (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

How about creating an image collage for the lead image?
I am proposing that we create a 2x2 image collage as a lead image. Similar to how it's been done for climate change mitigation, sustainable energy and climate change adaptation. (or Co-benefits of climate change mitigation, marine biology). I think photos just always work better than graphs to quickly identify that "I've landed at the right article" and this is what it's all about. EMsmile (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Go for it - but please not too disturbing pics Chidgk1 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree! Images always tell a story better. I think images of factory farms (nothing too graphic), livestock on grazed land, images from protests promoting vegetarianism/veganism, etc...!!Apirah.n (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at creating this image collage just to get the ball rolling (see the article page). Feel free to suggest better images or a better variety and change & improve this... EMsmile (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Great point! By looking at the collage it is explicit what the main focus of the article is. Mymywg (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth
— Assignment last updated by ChloejWard (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @AllisonStacho
 * Good choice of article and your arrival is timely.
 * @EMsmile rightly says that Environmental impacts of animal agriculture should be in the lead and @Jarfuls of Tweed rightly says it should not just be a copy of the text in the body of the article. Perhaps you would like to have a go at summarizing the section into a paragraph or two for the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Should be “Environmental impact of livestock”?
I propose the scope of this article be widened and it be renamed to “Environmental impact of livestock” because it will be easier to find global sources: for example cites and statistics for the impact of cattle sometimes do not breakdown beef cattle from dairy cattle, and chickens for eggs may not be distinguished from chickens for meat.

Your thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Or “Environmental impact of farmed animals” is another possibility Chidgk1 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not because of the animals per se but because of farming them. I feel "Environmental impact of animal agriculture" would be better. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is a really good idea. I guess "livestock" is the right term here (even though not everyone would know what it is). "farmed animals" might also work. Perhaps look around on Google and determine the WP:Commonname? In any case it would be good to change it from "meat production". Keep in mind also potential overlap with greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. And do we need a sub-article for climate impacts of livestock eventually? Not everyone might expect climate impacts to be a subset of "environmental impacts"? The climate impact of livestock is actually massive - I think people are only slowly realising this and becoming aware of it. Perhaps rather than protesting in front of coal mines (example Lützerath) people should protest in front of meat and dairy farms... EMsmile (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article may have some overlap with the actual agriculture article, but given animal agriculture is far more impactful than plant agriculture or any other sector, there would be several issues that could be exclusively discussed only in this article. We don't need a "climate impacts" sub-article but a sub-section within this article would take care of that. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand whether you support or oppose my proposal. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do support it. :) I just suggested the title to be "Environmental impact of animal agriculture" (please see my earlier replies). Rasnaboy (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also environmental impact of fishing is covered in that article, whereas there is no equivalent for eggs and milk as far as I know. Have renamed as you suggested. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How can you tell the difference between methane gas’s? humans create methane gas as well.Dogs and cats create methane gas as well. Should we get rid of them too? Also if cows produce so much methane why isn’t it harnessed and used to create energy? 173.2.146.255 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume your first question means how can you tell where methane is coming from. Point a methane detector at your gas valve or whatever you suspect is giving off methane. Don't know if that works for cows. For more details about cows see the Climate Trace website. By the way if you could improve articles such as Infrared open-path detector that would be great
 * 2nd question - the amount of methane produced by mammals other than Ruminants is very very small.
 * 3rd question - if you have a great idea about how to capture the methane from cows belches don’t write it here Chidgk1 (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)