This makes it more contaminating than pollution. It all adds up to the rights of organic (mainly manure) and inorganic (hormones, antibiotics etc.) that come from such productions. Some might say that agriculture is much more polluting than livestock, arguing that there is no point if agricultural products are intended or not intended for human consumption. Therefore, someone could also argue that the harmful effects of livestock on the environment pollution only has to be taken into account and not the back ground of livestock such as where it originates from and what it takes for it to develop, considering it of little relevance. However, "the third of global agricultural production ( 670 million tons ) is intended for livestock consumption " ( Ramos ) and "95 % Oilseed ( including cotton seed , avocado , hearts of palm, sunflower seed, rapeseed and soybean ), 73 % corn, 20 % wheat and 44 % cereals which are used to feed livestock . This leads to the conclusion that since much of agriculture is designed and driven by the needs that livestock production has, it has an important role in pollution due to agricultural activity that has occurred. Another additional data on how the livestock seriously influences other highly polluting industries is that 93% of fish meal is globally intended as food for cattle, which shows the strong impact that fisheries have worldwide. A clear example is in Peru , where the coastal area has been seriously affected by industrial fisheries at an environmental, socioeconomic level and even seriously affecting the health of the population. "Taurino Querevalu is returning to port empty again after a hunt for Peruvian anchovy, cursing his empty nets and an increasingly stingy sea" (Gerken). This confirms that livestock has a strong impact and adverse effects on the environment, even more than many other activities that are also pollutants such as agriculture and industrial fisheries, since much of the pollution of these are originated to meet the needs of livestock production.
