21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Comparative terrestrial feed and land use of an aquaculture-dominant world

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p id="d1858131e225">Studies are revealing the potential benefits of shifting human diets away from meat and toward other protein sources, including seafood. The majority of seafood is now, and for the foreseeable future, farmed (i.e., aquaculture). As the fastest-growing food sector, fed aquaculture species increasingly rely on terrestrial-sourced feed crops, but the comparative impact of aquaculture versus livestock on associated feed and land use is unclear––especially if human diets shift. Based on global production data, feed use trends, and human consumption patterns, we simulate how feed-crop and land use may increase by midcentury, but demonstrate that millions of tonnes of crops and hectares could be spared for most, but not all, countries worldwide in an aquaculture-dominant future. </p><p class="first" id="d1858131e228">Reducing food production pressures on the environment while feeding an ever-growing human population is one of the grand challenges facing humanity. The magnitude of environmental impacts from food production, largely around land use, has motivated evaluation of the environmental and health benefits of shifting diets, typically away from meat toward other sources, including seafood. However, total global catch of wild seafood has remained relatively unchanged for the last two decades, suggesting increased demand for seafood will mostly have to rely on aquaculture (i.e., aquatic farming). Increasingly, cultivated aquatic species depend on feed inputs from agricultural sources, raising concerns around further straining crops and land use for feed. However, the relative impact and potential of aquaculture remains unclear. Here we simulate how different forms of aquaculture contribute and compare with feed and land use of terrestrial meat production and how spatial patterns might change by midcentury if diets move toward more cultured seafood and less meat. Using country-level aquatic and terrestrial data, we show that aquaculture requires less feed crops and land, even if over one-third of protein production comes from aquaculture by 2050. However, feed and land-sparing benefits are spatially heterogeneous, driven by differing patterns of production, trade, and feed composition. Ultimately, our study highlights the future potential and uncertainties of considering aquaculture in the portfolio of sustainability solutions around one of the largest anthropogenic impacts on the planet. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Food consumption trends and drivers

          A picture of food consumption (availability) trends and projections to 2050, both globally and for different regions of the world, along with the drivers largely responsible for these observed consumption trends are the subject of this review. Throughout the world, major shifts in dietary patterns are occurring, even in the consumption of basic staples towards more diversified diets. Accompanying these changes in food consumption at a global and regional level have been considerable health consequences. Populations in those countries undergoing rapid transition are experiencing nutritional transition. The diverse nature of this transition may be the result of differences in socio-demographic factors and other consumer characteristics. Among other factors including urbanization and food industry marketing, the policies of trade liberalization over the past two decades have implications for health by virtue of being a factor in facilitating the ‘nutrition transition’ that is associated with rising rates of obesity and chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. Future food policies must consider both agricultural and health sectors, thereby enabling the development of coherent and sustainable policies that will ultimately benefit agriculture, human health and the environment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change.

            What we eat greatly influences our personal health and the environment we all share. Recent analyses have highlighted the likely dual health and environmental benefits of reducing the fraction of animal-sourced foods in our diets. Here, we couple for the first time, to our knowledge, a region-specific global health model based on dietary and weight-related risk factors with emissions accounting and economic valuation modules to quantify the linked health and environmental consequences of dietary changes. We find that the impacts of dietary changes toward less meat and more plant-based diets vary greatly among regions. The largest absolute environmental and health benefits result from diet shifts in developing countries whereas Western high-income and middle-income countries gain most in per capita terms. Transitioning toward more plant-based diets that are in line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce global mortality by 6-10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29-70% compared with a reference scenario in 2050. We find that the monetized value of the improvements in health would be comparable with, or exceed, the value of the environmental benefits although the exact valuation method used considerably affects the estimated amounts. Overall, we estimate the economic benefits of improving diets to be 1-31 trillion US dollars, which is equivalent to 0.4-13% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2050. However, significant changes in the global food system would be necessary for regional diets to match the dietary patterns studied here.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems.

              We present a unique, biologically consistent, spatially disaggregated global livestock dataset containing information on biomass use, production, feed efficiency, excretion, and greenhouse gas emissions for 28 regions, 8 livestock production systems, 4 animal species (cattle, small ruminants, pigs, and poultry), and 3 livestock products (milk, meat, and eggs). The dataset contains over 50 new global maps containing high-resolution information for understanding the multiple roles (biophysical, economic, social) that livestock can play in different parts of the world. The dataset highlights: (i) feed efficiency as a key driver of productivity, resource use, and greenhouse gas emission intensities, with vast differences between production systems and animal products; (ii) the importance of grasslands as a global resource, supplying almost 50% of biomass for animals while continuing to be at the epicentre of land conversion processes; and (iii) the importance of mixed crop–livestock systems, producing the greater part of animal production (over 60%) in both the developed and the developing world. These data provide critical information for developing targeted, sustainable solutions for the livestock sector and its widely ranging contribution to the global food system.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
                Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                April 30 2018
                : 201801692
                Article
                10.1073/pnas.1801692115
                5960322
                29712823
                366b6d8c-0ef9-4212-b653-5784770ce7f1
                © 2018

                Free to read

                http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/userlicense.xhtml

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article