Example collocations logo

Livestock in sentence

201 examples of Livestock in a sentence

Moreover, if we treated climate change as the emergency it is and were serious about slowing the pace of warming over the next 20 years, the proportional influence of livestock farming would be even greater.
As food-supply growth has slowed, demand has continued to rise, owing not only to population increase, but also for reasons such as growing use of food crops to sustain livestock.
Saudi pressure on Somaliland has ranged from banning livestock imports between 1996-2006, to threatening to reject the Somaliland passports of Hajj pilgrims.
Villagers whose crops shriveled and whose livestock died in a prolonged drought saw joining the Taliban as an economic opportunity.
Some 40% of British exports go to the EU market, and Britain’s factories rely heavily on goods swiftly crossing European borders, whether it be livestock from Ireland or crankshafts from Germany.
The High Cost of Cheap MeatBERLIN – Factory-style livestock production is a critical driver of agricultural industrialization.
One major problem with factory-style livestock production is that it leads to considerable greenhouse-gas emissions – and not just because the digestive processes of ruminant animals produce methane.
As it stands, about one-third of existing agricultural land is used for feed production, with the total share used for livestock production, including grazing, amounting to about 70%.
Increased crop diversion to feed livestock will put upward pressure on food and land prices, making it increasingly difficult for the world’s poor to meet their basic nutritional needs.
Making matters worse, the shift from mixed-use or indigenous systems of raising livestock to large-scale operations jeopardizes rural livelihoods, particularly in developing countries.
And the industrial livestock system, with its low wages and poor health and safety standards, does not provide a good alternative for employment.
Finally, there is the public-health impact of industrial livestock production.
The answer lies in its oligopolistic power, which enables industrial livestock producers to externalize their true social and environmental costs, which must then be covered by workers and taxpayers.
And the US Department of Agriculture’s farm bill programs could provide increased support for free-range livestock operations, in order to encourage more sustainable approaches to meat production.
And pastoralists are more market-savvy than many believe; the Horn of Africa’s pastoral livestock and meat trade is estimated to be worth $1 billion.
Using land that cannot support conventional agriculture, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists produce meat, milk, and livestock products that sustain millions.
Effective trade networks and access to livestock markets would enable them to increase sales substantially.
Meat production is a tremendously inefficient use of agricultural land, because considerably more plant-based food is needed to feed livestock than we would need to feed ourselves directly through a plant-based diet.
When people recklessly use antibiotics to fight a common cold, when farmers use antibiotics to boost livestock productivity, or when pharmacological factories emit antibiotics into the environment to cut production costs, the bacteria that the drugs are designed to kill become immune.
While meat costs might climb, drug resistance in livestock would decline, as would adverse environmental effects.
The reasons were many: poor weather, pests, shortages of animal power after peasants slaughtered livestock rather than losing it to the collective, shortages of tractors, the shooting and deportation of the best farmers, and the disruption of sowing and reaping caused by collectivization itself.
Given that livestock require much more food, land, water, and energy to raise and transport than plants, increased demand for meat depletes natural resources, places pressure on food-production systems, damages ecosystems, and fuels climate change.
At any given time, the global livestock population amounts to more than 150 billion, compared to just 7.2 billion humans – meaning that livestock have a larger direct ecological footprint than we do.
Livestock production causes almost 14.5% of global greenhouse-gas emissions and contributes significantly to water pollution.
Moreover, livestock production consumes one-third of the total water resources used in agriculture (which accounts for 71% of the world’s water consumption), as well as more than 40% of the global output of wheat, rye, oats, and corn.
And livestock production uses 30% of the earth’s land surface that once was home to wildlife, thereby playing a critical role in biodiversity loss and species extinction.
In order to meet this demand, meat producers have had to adopt an extremely problematic approach to raising livestock.
Making matters worse, the livestock are injected with large amounts of hormones and antibiotics.
In the US, 80% of all antibiotics sold are administered prophylactically to livestock.
For starters, to ease some of the resource pressure, livestock producers should switch to water-saving technologies, including drip irrigation.
BackNext