Estimates suggest that 97% of the land mammal biomass on earth today — that’s the weight of the mammals that we can see with our eyes — is made up of livestock; the animals that human beings manage for our benefit.
I’ll just say that number again… ninety-seven per cent.
Almost all the land mammal biomass is made up of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horses, companion animals, and the occasional alpaca.
Here is what that looks like.
The current biomass of Earth’s land mammals. Source: image from The Overpopulation Project, data from Smith et al. 2015 – Megafauna in the Earth system; based on Vaclav Smil: “The Earth’s Biosphere – Evolution, Dynamics, and Change”
That means just 3% of the biomass of all land mammals is available to distribute among the mammal species not used as human livestock and there are at least 5,488 of them. In 2008, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) completed a five-year Global Mammal Assessment for its IUCN Red List that counted 5,488 mammal species.
Recall that biomass is the physicality of the organism. The mass of an object is a measure of the object’s inertial property or the amount of matter it contains and a measure of the force exerted on the object by gravity. So of all of the available mass in land mammals, only 3% is available to be distributed among thousands of wild mammal species.
Not much really.
Feeding all the livestock
There is some basic ecology needed here.
Animals respire. That means they use energy from their environment in the form of other organisms in order to survive, grow, and reproduce. The energy conversion rate isn’t great and mammals with warm bodies to maintain need to eat a lot, the plant eaters especially.
And it’s the herbivores that humans use. We are not fond of carnivores and anyway there are relatively few of them due to that energy conversion problem.
At least 50% of the habitable land area of the planet is used for agriculture and 77% of that, some 40 million km2, is for the rearing of livestock.
In other words, humans have converted vast amounts of land to either graze or grow feed for our livestock.
It’s not just the land mammal biomass but the land needed to support them that has impacted on the biodiversity of not just the other mammal species but the plants and invertebrate animals too.
Here is another way to look at the reason for biodiversity loss.
The sun shines and delivers energy to the earth.
Some of that energy is captured by plants and converted into biomass that animals utilize. The microbes and fungi are around too to help with the nutrient transfers and the whole ecosystem has a maximum amount of energy transfer determined by the location, the season and the climate.
In fact, there is a maximum biomass that the planet can deliver and what’s happened is that humans have appropriated directly or indirectly through the animals that they consume, a large proportion of that biomass.
Agriculture and, in particular, livestock husbandry has resulted in a huge proportion of primary production going into that 97%.
Whichever way you look at it, humans have gone from being way less than 3% of the mammal biomass in pre-industrial revolution days to being responsible for 97% of it today.
It is inevitable that many mammal species will be under a great deal of pressure to survive. As will so many other species deprived of their energy source.
Somehow I don’t understand what is hard about this basic logic.
We can’t have our steak and eat it in this case. You can’t be appropriating all the biomass and still expect to keep all the other animals that you like.
As an ecologist, this logic is so basic and ingrained that it’s kind of a no brainer.
We shouldn’t be surprised about any of the biodiversity loss that we see around the world. That appropriation of energy and biomass is sufficient to make it happen.
Add habitat change, climate issues, and the altering of habitats through pollution and other externalities that businesses are so keen on delivering to the world, then it just makes biodiversity loss inevitable.
Our only planet
It’s also hard to dispute the numbers.
Whether it’s 90% or 97%, is really not the issue but take a look at Google Earth and pan across any of the continents. The landscape has been altered by human activity. There are very few countries with more than 10 or 15 per cent of their land area that’s in anything other than agricultural production.
A few reserves here and there, a few patches of vegetation here and there, but essentially the landscape has been converted into one massive farm for the benefit of humanity.
There will always be a dispute over the numbers, dare we say denial, but the imagery is there to be seen and if you don’t believe the satellite imagery just drive through the countryside. When you’re driving through the bush just look beyond the fringing vegetation on the roadside and into the fields. And you’ll see that they go for miles. We have converted the landscape, there’s no question about it.
That is our current legacy.
It’s a hard one to take. The reality and the magnitude of this change to the planet, our only planet, isolated in this tiny corner of the universe. The only place that we have, the only place we’ll ever have, is being ripped from underneath us by our own actions.
That is what it is.
The only hope is that we are smart. Having figured out all of these ways to appropriate resources, maybe we’re smart enough to realize what we’re doing and turn it around. There’s a small window of opportunity over the next 50 to 100 years but we have to start now.
Or that window will shut.
Some conservation questions
- Should we focus on the 3% or the 97%?
- What will happen if the 97% becomes 100%?
- Will some land mammal species be saved by the law of diminishing returns?
- Will remote and inaccessible habitats be the only saviour for some species?
- Can national parks and wildlife reserve save land mammal species?
Hero image modified from a photo by Alloporus