← Back to Library

Don't demonize efficiency in animal agriculture

Robert Yaman · · ·10 min read
Commentary by Hex Index staff

In a climate discourse saturated with calls to dismantle industrial farming, Robert Yaman delivers a jarring, data-driven counter-narrative: efficiency is not the enemy of the planet, but perhaps its most underappreciated savior. While critics often conflate high-yield agriculture with ecological destruction, Yaman argues that the very mechanisms we demonize—selective breeding, optimized nutrition, and intensive management—are the only reason we haven't already paved over the world's remaining forests to feed eight billion people.

The Accounting Error

Yaman anchors his argument in a stark statistical reality drawn from Michael Grunwald's book We Are Eating the Earth. He notes that since World War II, the U.S. dairy herd has shrunk by two-thirds, even as the human population more than doubled. "None of the above–it's because the average output of a dairy cow increased from 4,572 lbs per cow to 24,178 lbs per cow," Yaman writes. This surge in productivity, achieved through decades of scientific refinement rather than a shift in consumer diet, means we need significantly fewer animals to produce the same volume of food.

Don't demonize efficiency in animal agriculture

This framing forces a re-evaluation of how we measure environmental impact. Yaman contends that "getting more with less is a central theme" in solving the climate crisis, yet "bad climate accounting has led us toward flashy but counterproductive solutions." He points out that many proposed fixes, such as biofuels, fail when one considers the "opportunity cost of land." When land is diverted to grow corn for ethanol, the carbon sequestration potential of the forest or grassland that could have existed there is lost. "The less we use [land], the better," Yaman argues, making productivity the primary lever for conservation. This is a crucial distinction often missed in popular environmentalism, which frequently champions low-yield, land-intensive methods like regenerative agriculture without calculating the acreage required to feed a global population.

Critics might note that this utilitarian calculus ignores the localized pollution and antibiotic resistance associated with concentrated animal feeding operations. However, Yaman anticipates this, suggesting these are "unintended side effects of how efficiency has been pursued" rather than inherent flaws in efficiency itself.

"On this method of accounting, efficiency gains have averted more animal deaths than any sort of climate or animal advocacy ever has."

The Welfare Paradox

The piece's most provocative claim lies in its re-examination of animal welfare. Conventional wisdom suggests that industrialization brutalizes animals, but Yaman presents a complex counter-narrative based on mortality rates and lifespan. He highlights that while individual animals today may face different health challenges, the aggregate number of lives lived has been drastically reduced by efficiency gains. "Just in 2023, these efficiency gains would have accounted for 26 million fewer cows, 29 million fewer pigs, and 3.3 billion fewer chickens than would have been needed with the agriculture of 1960."

Yaman dissects the nuance of welfare metrics. He acknowledges that the rapid growth of modern broiler chickens has led to painful heart and leg issues, a problem exacerbated by the "ruthless efficiency" of breeding for yield. Yet, he also points to the dramatic drop in pre-slaughter mortality, which fell from 18% in 1915 to under 6% by 1960. Furthermore, because modern chickens grow so fast, they spend far less time in suffering: "Thanks to faster growth, chickens now live much shorter lives before slaughter... This means that we now only need half the chicken-days now to meet demand compared to how agriculture was in 1960."

This analysis reframes the ethical dilemma. Rather than viewing the modern chicken's short life as a tragedy, Yaman suggests it is a "footprint that efficiency helps us shrink." He argues that problems like male chick culling are not inevitable results of efficiency, but specific structural failures that can be solved with technology like in-ovo sexing without sacrificing productivity. "The distinction matters since it means the problem is solvable if the solution doesn't sacrifice efficiency."

Beyond Silver Bullets

Yaman concludes by rejecting the search for a perfect, pain-free food system. He draws a parallel between agriculture and healthcare, noting that while modern medicine is far from perfect, it is undeniably better than the past. "Modern medicine will never be 'solved,' because there will always be ways that life could be better," he observes, applying the same logic to farming. The goal, he suggests, is not to abandon industrial systems but to relentlessly improve them.

He warns against the temptation of "silver-bullet fantasies" that promise easy fixes. Instead, the path forward is messy and requires "rolling up your sleeves and actually doing it." The core message is one of pragmatic optimism: "There will always be ways to improve the lives of animals, and ways to be more efficient with the animals we do raise. We should continually push on both welfare and efficiency until we're raising only as many animals as necessary."

Bottom Line

Robert Yaman's commentary succeeds in dismantling the simplistic binary that pits efficiency against ethics, offering a rigorous, data-backed case that productivity is a moral imperative for both climate and animal welfare. Its greatest vulnerability lies in the difficulty of implementing the very technological fixes he proposes without regulatory capture or corporate resistance, but the argument remains a vital correction to the current environmental narrative. Readers should watch for how these efficiency metrics hold up as the industry faces new pressures to reduce methane emissions and water usage.

"It's only because agriculture is so efficient that we can feed 8 billion people today without already having cut down the rest of the world's forests."

The strongest part of this argument is its willingness to confront the uncomfortable truth that saving the planet may require raising fewer animals, not necessarily different ones. The biggest risk is that this nuanced view of efficiency could be co-opted to justify further intensification without the necessary welfare safeguards Yaman demands. Ultimately, the piece challenges us to stop looking for a magic wand and start doing the hard, unglamorous work of optimization.

Deep Dives

Explore these related deep dives:

  • Green Revolution

    The article's central argument about agricultural efficiency gains since WWII directly parallels the Green Revolution - the massive increase in agricultural productivity through selective breeding, fertilizers, and improved farming techniques that transformed global food production. Understanding this historical context illuminates why efficiency became the dominant paradigm in agriculture.

  • Jevons paradox

    The article briefly acknowledges that 'efficiency also lowers costs, which can drive up demand' - this is exactly Jevons paradox, the counterintuitive phenomenon where technological efficiency improvements lead to increased resource consumption rather than decreased. Understanding this economic principle is crucial for evaluating the article's efficiency arguments.

  • Broiler

    The article discusses specific welfare issues with modern chickens including growth rates, mortality statistics, and health problems from selective breeding. The Wikipedia article on broiler chickens provides deep context on how these birds were developed, their biology, and the industry practices that shape their lives - directly relevant to the welfare accounting discussion.

Sources

Don't demonize efficiency in animal agriculture

by Robert Yaman · · Read full article

In Michael Grunwald’s new fantastic book, We Are Eating the Earth, he points out that “since World War II, the U.S. dairy herd has shrunk by two-thirds.” It’s true–in 1944, there were 25.6 million dairy cows and now there are 9.3 million. This is even more striking when you consider that in 1944 there were 138 million Americans and now there are 342 million.

How can this be? Is it because rates of lactose intolerance are rising, or because people started to realize that dairy is a land-intensive process that’s bad for the climate? Or is it a triumph of vegan advocacy that convinced people to consume less milk, and instead drink alternatives like soy, oat, and almond milk?

None of the above–it’s because the average output of a dairy cow increased from 4,572 lbs per cow to 24,178 lbs per cow. That increase came from decades of selective breeding, improved nutrition, better veterinary care, and more optimized farm management. When each cow produces five times as much milk, you need significantly fewer of them

Getting more with less is a central theme in We Are Eating the Earth, where Grunwald offers a sober, realistic, and insightful take on how we can feed a growing population in a world that’s heating up faster than we’d like. He zeroes in on how we tally the climate costs of agriculture, and how bad climate accounting has led us toward flashy but counterproductive solutions. When we do the accounting right, two truths emerge: first, there are no silver bullets in agriculture. Second, increasing productivity is one of our most powerful tools, because it lets us produce more food with less impact.

Focusing on the virtues of agricultural productivity may seem surprising coming from a staunch environmentalist like Grunwald. But it reflects a broader truth: industrial agriculture may cause emissions, pollution, and poor animal welfare, but the more efficient agriculture is, the less of it we need.

The Opportunity Cost of Land.

When it comes to climate accounting, Grunwald argues that land use is often the most overlooked aspect. The reason conserving land is important isn’t just to preserve scenic vistas or to protect endangered species. It’s because forests, grasslands, and other natural ecosystems are the best ways we have to keep carbon in the ground rather than in the atmosphere. Converting land to other uses, even purportedly climate-friendly ones, always comes with opportunity ...