I read with disdain a Thought Leader blog that called the farming of meat “evil”. I have just returned to Canada and I visiting my parents on the farm and it is killing time. I say this to be provocative and honest about what we do. The chickens and turkeys are fully grown and we have started to process them. The lambs have been sent to the processing plant last week and we have freezers full of meat.
We have currently 150 breeding ewes, 18 horses, 50 chickens for meat, 12 for eggs, 25 turkeys, six dogs and some rescues (random barn cats, two ducks and a goat). We proudly raise and sell our animals for meat and we do so in as ethically and humanely manner as possible.
And yes, we kill them and eat them.
I get annoyed by animal rights activists who denounce the entire industry as “evil” or some other hyperbolic expression. I find they lack real information (a crude YouTube video is not evidence) and are dishonest in their portrayal of what farmers actually do.
What I also find annoying is that far too often people that denounce all animal use or consumption will still wear polyester based clothing. Sir Paul McCartney is a vocal advocate against the meat industry and he can be seen on the ice flows of the Canadian Arctic denouncing the seal hunt. He is easy to spot due to his bright red snow-suit made of a plastic by-product of the petrochemical industry; a far worse industry than meat producers in terms of global impact and environmental impact. I will return to the seal hunt below.
Our farm has been growing its sheep herd. Two years ago we only had 80 breeding ewes and grew all our own hay and barley to feed our animals. We were not officially organic as my parents could not be bothered to fight to obtain the certificate, which is not all that easy to get. We now raise too many sheep to grow our own barley although we usually produce enough hay annually to meet our needs. The cost to get certified organic feed for the sheep is too prohibitive in cost for us to source. I am not convinced that certified organic is necessarily better. I would prefer to source meat for local farmers whether or not they are organic. I support farm fresh free-range chickens and one must be conscious that it is possible to raise organic chickens under battery conditions. So be conscious of organic labeling — it can be misleading in terms of ethics.
Despite the annual killing of our animals we love them dearly, raise them with pride and feel much more compassion than the anti-meat lobby would have you know. Most farmers do care deeply for their animals and their way of life; to depict them as savage, uncaring, brutes shows ignorance and a willful ignorance. Animals raised in cruel conditions do not grow as well, suffer more injuries and are difficult to handle. Battery farms of chickens are another story that overcome this through sheer size and are not what I am discussing here.
My mother feeds her chickens and turkeys daily any vegetable scraps and certain weeds from the garden alongside their normal chicken feed (a premix of different grains and minerals). When it comes time to kill them she allows dad to step in as the axe murderer. He calmly and slowly kills each chicken far away from the rest and their death is over in a few seconds from being grabbed to the final curtain.
Our sheep are taken to a slaughterhouse where they are dropped off and dispatched within a day. We do not sell any live lambs at market as we do not wish for them to be transported long-distances across Canada or into the USA in crowded conditions. None of our lambs live in a feed-lot at any time.
For many in the anti-meat lobby they see nothing but contradictions in our stance of caring and loving our animals to killing them. I think that as farmers, we accept that death is part of life and that nobody gets out of here alive. Ensuring the animals we raise suffer as little as possible does not make us hypocrites, but simply human.
For those about to attack me here, I ask you to look at your wardrobe. Do you have any nylon or products from the petrochemical industry lurking in your closet? Is that not a worse industry than the meat industry? Does it not contribute to the destruction of the environment and therefore the reduction of natural habitat? I am not even advocating all natural fibre for all our clothing needs as cotton also contributes terribly to devastation of crop lands and massive water consumption.
I am asking for balance in our views and beliefs.
I think that the anti-meat lobby should be more honest and upfront with their ideological beliefs. Their beliefs are at best beliefs in the sanctity of all life and their depiction of the meat industry is dishonest. Their claim to lesser environmental impact is erroneous as it posits all land as being of equal quality to produce their beans and vegetable crops. Meat is simply the best and most compact form of nutrition available to people in arable lands. The various peoples of the Kalahari I work with cannot live on beans trucked in from abroad.
And as for the meat eaters; I think they should know more about where their meat comes from and how it gets to their table. We should avoid buying meat wrapped in plastic and set out on Styrofoam trays. I would like everyone to speak to the manager of their local supermarket and request the removal of the Styrofoam trays and extra packaging. Even better would be to find a local farmer that you can buy direct from or use the local butcher.
And I said I would return to the seal hunt. I do support the Canadian seal hunt. And again this is not out of hatred for fluffy animals with big brown eyes, but is support for aboriginal communities that rely on this for their sole source of income and for the bio-degradable products created form this industry. As long as it stays carefully monitored and regulated, Paul McCartney can stay off the ice flows. And the little baby white coats that appear on youtube being clubbed to death are no longer hunted. The most horrific claims have been refute. Seals are not skinned alive as often claimed.
Enough on this topic for now. I await the comments that follow.
@Aragorn – I have written an entire blog to answer some of the claims made here buy those that disagree with me. I hope that clarifies a few things.
To give you some credit you are more informed than those citing youtube as credible sources, but do not think you are clearly articulating your ideological position. Your beliefs differ from my own when it comes to animals and animal; rights.
What I am wondering is why you appear only on Thought Leader blogs about animal rights? Do you have nothing to contribute to issues of race, crime and violence that is tearing SA apart? You claim (elsewhere) that you stopped being a vegetarian so you could be ethically consistent. Do you not find it ethically problematic or troubling that your ethics start and stop on this one issue? You conflate and integrate all issues into this one over-arching ideology, which then excludes discussion of other (in my view more important) issues.
What amazes me is that most of the vegans I know who (correctly) spreads the gospel that Veggie is healthier, also quite like to indulge in illicit substances, consume copious amounts of alcohol and tobacco, and grow their own organic mary-jane.
Set-off the health benefits of not eating meat by destroying liver and lungs.
I guess everybody has their vices…
@Aragorn Eloff
Thank you for that excellent link on population, that should be publicised more widely.
“So, what would happen if the population stopped growing; would this really make any difference in the long run?” – That about sums it up.
The “population explosion” is a regular scapegoat for right wing politicians and industry spin doctors and the ruse works well on conservativly minded people.
Hilter’s remark is very pertinant: “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach” – Adolf Hitler
A recent UN study calculates our global population will peak in about 2050, level off, and then start to drop.
A most interesting link on population increace/decrease for me is “Sub-replacement fertility” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
Negative population growth is possible, in some countries sub-replacement fertility is already a reality, we just need to raise economic and educational levels in high birth rate countries to achieve sub-replacement fertility everywhere.
@Aragorn …again
Could you please provide a link for “In fact, the only sources of methane, natural or otherwise, that are greater than domesticated ruminants, are the world’s wetlands, which emit about 230Tg.”
I have heard eleswhere that to counter CO2 emissions from agriculture we need to reintroduce wetlands, as they sequester or swab up CO2.
I know you are talking methane and I am talking CO2, both are problematic greenhouse gasses, CO2 more prolific but methane far more dangerous.
What is your take on the above?
@Perry Curling-Hope
Your relying on cultural anthopologist Michael Francis anecdotes on his parents farm substaniates my point that your – “flawed arguments” claiming “’Organic’ and industrial farming BOTH depend upon fossil inputs for viable output.” are just plain ‘wrong’?
Why not read something like the 2,500-page International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development [IAASTD]. It is backed by sixty countries, the World Bank and most UN bodies, and took 400 agricultural experts 4 years to prepare.
Third World Network, Practical Action, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, said in a statement: “This is a sobering account of the failure of industrial farming. Small-scale farmers and ecological methods provide the way forward to avert the current food crisis and meet the needs of communities.”
I have little hope that the above will change your thinking but that still does not make it plain wrong.
@Perry : correction
My last sentence on my last post should read – I have little hope that the above will change your thinking but that means YOUR THINKING is plain wrong according to the most recent comprehensive and cutting edge report on world agriculture.
PS. – I reiterate, it would take a book to rebut both your posts on fossil fuels and agriculture.
Firstly, nailing my colours to the mast, I am an ovo-lacto vegetarian, wear leather.
The genesis of this article seems to be a response to Jared Cinman’s article on ‘The evil of meat’.
What Michael Francis chose to ignore (because he needed the strawman, I suspect) was that Cinman is the kind of veggie that embarrasses veggies like me. I am not one to proselyse and attack from a moral high horse.
The meat industry is not ‘evil’ – that kind of high-school sniping belongs to a Naomi Klein book. It is, however, environmentally unsustainable, wasteful, and irresponsible. Cinman is actually a useful idiot which Francis needs in order to recast the debate in favour of meat-eaters.
I am grateful for Aragorn’s responses, which have blown the naysayers out of the water: they are calm, rational, and respectful in the face of facile and imbecilic comments.
@Michael Francis
@”I am not convinced that certified organic is necessarily better. I would prefer to source meat for local farmers whether or not they are organic.”
There is ample evidence that organic is better for human health and the environment. However organic farming is still an elitist, class based agriculture.
Why don’t you do an article on The Science of Sustainable Agroecology. That is the agriculture of the future that will sustain our planet and 9.2 billion people, yet few people even know the term let alone understand it.
Ahem? @Michael Francis
Michael, Michael, Michael!!!!
“All of the claims being made about growth hormones in the meat are rubbish. That went out in the 1960s as it is not cost effective. I do not know a single cattle or any animal farmer that uses these ‘growth hormones’. This is repeated ad nauseum as if it is truthful.”
Michael my good man, nothing could be further from the truth.
Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH or rBST) was never approved in Canada (mid 1990′s), but is permitted and used in both USA and South Africa.
Here is a fact sheet of the harm to humans and animals caused by rBGH, known as rBST in South Africa and used on dairy cows:
http://nwrage.com/downloads/ORPFSR_rbghFactSheet.pdf
Estimated two thirds of animals slaughered in US injected with artificial hormones:
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/
@Zoo Keeper: Methane will be produced anyway, but in far lower quantities if we stop meat consumption (and remember, methane is 20-30 times worse than CO2 for our atmosphere). Sure, historically it might have been higher, but then, as you say, this was concomitant with a mass extinction, which is something we should probably try avoid if we can, right?
I also worry a great deal about water pollution and water loss. In fact, I recently watched some great documentaries on the subject:
http://www.flowthefilm.com
http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com
If you are concerned about water issues, you cannot ignore livestock and industrial fishing, both of which have tremendous impacts on potable water, aquatic ecosystems, etc.
Mercury poisoning is one very good reason not to eat fish, by the way
Waste disposal is also a very important issue. Are you aware of the impact of waste from the livestock industry in the form of nitrous oxide, ammonia, etc.?
The mining industry is also a frightening player in this regard, especially locally where we have very little accountability and easily corruptable officials. There is a frightening expose due on all this early next year, apparently.
In short, there are probably more than enough serious environmental problems for everyone to engage; I just think we should focus on the truly massive issues first and, regardless of who we ask, from fringe animal rights groups to the United Nations, it seems that livestock is one of the biggest of them all.
@Michael Francis,
Actually, Peter Singer is at Princeton. He was previously at Melbourne.
http://philosophy.princeton.edu/faculty
I am well aware of his views, you should read what he says about abortion. It’s pointless, however, to quote them without an analysis of his arguments for those positions and I doubt you’d be able to properly refute them anyway.
But that’s besides the point because this debate is about slaughtering animals. Quoting random snippets of his work in other aspects of the animal/human debate in no way discounts his arguments with regards to whether or not slaughtering them is morally justifiable. As an academic you should know this.
@Michael Francis
I said “What the average meat eater forgets is that if Americans in the USA reduced the amount of meat they consume by 10% those resources would feed 100 million starving people.” Our problem is one of overconsumption and limited resources (not overpopulation as other commentators will have it.)
Granted, Etheopians starving while food was being exported from their country during the famine would not have not have been fed by Americans cutting back on meat, unless those resources were used to donate aid to Etheopia, but the Etheopian example shows how our capitalist free market (free trade) system coming hot on the heels of colonialism has let the poor down.
Maybe at some time, address why 800 million people are starving, lets debate that as well.
I very much doubt that the planet could survive if all its 6.7 billion inhabitants indulged in the amount of meat US Americans do anyway.
In South America thousands of sustainable small scale farmers are being forced off their land and rainforests destroyed as well to make way for plantations of GM soya to feed beef in Europe to supply steak to the European market.
If the Europeans cut back on meat, those indigenous South American people could get their land back, move back from squalid conditions in overcrowded cities and start their lives again.
@Michael: I can assure you that animal rights are just one of many ethical issues that Aragorn Eloff is interested in – his ethics most definitely do not not “start and stop on this one issue”.
Thought Leader blogs are not representative of the whole world you know, so don’t jump to conclusions.
@Zoo Keeper
Each of your posts has hidden in it some message from industry, or in one way or another you try to deflect from real issues by using for example the overpopulation myth in another post.
This time it is the favorite oil industry message -there are things that are much worse than global warming you say, yawn, heard it all before.
@Michael (@Andrew)
The reference to Ethiopia is another strawman: just because that particular famine was self-inflicted doesn’t mean that meat farming has no effect on global food prices, distribution and food security. If you are going to expand the argument, it’s easy to comment on the supply elasticities of global farming, and the effects of changes in supply on the global price.
@Michael (@Aragorn)
“What I am wondering is why you appear only on Thought Leader blogs about animal rights? Do you have nothing to contribute to issues of race, crime and violence that is tearing SA apart? ”
The above is another strawman and ad hominem. Aragorn is under no moral obligation to comment on anything and everything. It is also possible for someone to pronounce on Zimbabwe and not Israel (or vice versa, and so on and so forth).
He doesn’t have to dance to your tune when it comes to responding. He’s responded on topic, to the point, clearly and respectfully. In contrast, this latest response of yours is scattergun, patronising, and largely off-topic.
Personally, I’m underwhelmed by your references to “.. an entire blog to answer some of the claims made here buy those that disagree with me”. Maybe some clear, on-topic links would help.
@Michael Francis
According to this recent article most Canadian beef is banned from the EU due to the use of hormone treatments that reduce feed costs and speed up growth:
http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=15211
@Michael: Thanks for taking the time to write a separate blog response to the growing discussion your original post has triggered. (Thanks also for subscribing to the SA Vegan Society website – hopefully this indicates a commitment on your part to an informed, objective discussion).
I have a nuanced philosophical position on the ethics of how we regard non-human animals. However, the comments section in a blog post is perhaps not the ideal place for ethical philosophy. If you want a very broad overview of my thinking on veganism / animal rights, here’s an old article of mine: http://www.freespirit.co.za/?q=node/7821
Here’s another on more general environmental issues: http://www.harmoniousliving.co.za/Environment/Eco-Friendly/It-Ain-t-Easy-Being-Green/
I am saddened by your observation that my engagement with ‘issues’ stops at animal rights. As one of the directors of the SA Vegan Society this is certainly a core focus, but I am also involved with various environmental and social justice groups and related initiatives. I march, I write, I talk, I argue, I organise events, I screen documentaries…I even support MAPS!
Defensive self-adulation aside though, I feel impelled to ask: are all vegans supposed to be multi-issue superhumans? I doubt you would ask someone involved with issues of homophobia in townships why they weren’t also tackling climate change, nor would you expect anti-xenophobia campaigners to supply sophisticated analyses on the impact of the financial crisis, surely?
@Gerry: Whoa there boy! Veganism isn’t some puritanical form of self preservation – it’s most often simply a commitment to live in a way that causes as little suffering to animals as possible.
That said, I don’t actually know that many vegans who *do* consumer ‘copious’ amounts of alcohol (although a glass of red wine or beer a day might be quite good for you, and I’m a sucker for a nice Islay).
Some vegans are interested in personal health, sure, but that’s a personal choice, not an a priori obligation they have as a vegan. For all I care, a vegan can be a chain-smoking, heroin-injecting alcoholic (although I wouldn’t make them our PR person
); veganism has *nothing* to do with how one treats one’s own body!
PS: I hope you’re not one of those people who thinks that all substances(illicit or not) are equally bad (mmmkay) and form one lumpen homogeneous category. Many people benefit from the prudent use of marijuana and various psychedelics, for instance, and the use of opiates for pain relief by the medical industry should remind you that context is everything when it comes to the use / abuse debate. http://www.maps.org is illuminating in this regard.
@Clean Air: Here’s the methane data: http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
There’s no word in any of these arguments about the relevance of this debate to South Africa. Not that this is necessarily a problem, but I am trying to imagine how well the no-meat message will go down with those citizens who love their shisa nyama and cannot see any moral reason not to enjoy it.
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/michaelfrancis/2009/11/10/ethical-farming-part-two/
Here is the link to the blog where I clarify my position.
@ Counter Spin
Sorry to dissapoint you but I hold no candle for the oil industry or any other industry for that matter. I genuinely think that population growth is out of control and has an impact. More people means more food production means more energy consumption means more polution means more etc.
Just wait till those poor 800million-odd attain a better lifestyle…
I will check out the links and concede if I am wrong.
A long time ago I asked a wise old man why he told everyone the world was flat. He said it wasn’t about the world being flat, it was about questioning the prevailing wisdom, however over-powering that may be.
I like to ask questions and, hopefully, get some answers.
I do question global warming science because I think there are other influences about but do not support the oil industry. I would love an alternative to oil-based transport.
Global warming is a big issue but there are a myriad of other challenges to be dealt with which would, in my opinion, also deal with global warming.
Burning less petrol and diesel is but one aspect. Getting rid of our dependency on plastics etc would also do us a world of good. If you’ve ever been up close and personal with a petro-chemical plant you’ll know what I mean.
Having read this entire discussion I feel that Aragorn (and Andrew) have sufficiently addressed the ethics of this issue. Both in form and content they have argued their case with clarity and precision, not losing sight of the core issues or ethics or going off on a tangent (rightly identified as a “straw man”).
Either people choose to honestly confront the facts that have been succinctly laid out before them (and confront the inherent ambiguity in their support of what still remains an exploitative and abusive industry), or they can continue to bury their heads and reasoning in the sand whilst trying to convince themselves they lead ‘ethical’ lives.
@Zoo Keeper
Questioning is one thing, unfortunately your posts regurgitate almost word for word spin put out by right wing think tanks and industry spin doctors.
The following statement by you is a dead give away: “The warmest years on record were 1934 and 1998. The earth has gradually cooled whilst emmissions have increased over the past 10 years, especially since China decided to catch up.”
Not an iota of mainstream science to substantiate that drivel. But check out every right wing political blog site, you will get crucified if you dispute it.
@Sarah Britten
You have a point but will the masses in any country, even Canada, appreciate this debate?
Keep in mind that traditionally Africans ate very little meat, mostly on ceremonial occasions. Westernisation has brought voracious meat eating to them along with the associated health problems.
But yes, I would like to see the debate focus more on African agriculture, its challenges and the potential solutions.
@Sarah: Climate change doesn’t stop at man-made borders. Nevertheless, those of us advocating environmental responsibility are acutely aware that a specific engagement with issues of ‘tradition’ and cultural identification is required to reach the majority of South Africans.
The recent growth of veganism in the townships is encouraging in this regard, as is the composition of attendance at recent local protests around energy provision, pollution, etc.
@Zoo Keeper: Given the provision of comprehensive data on how diet affects climate (more than population, given the stats on regulatory mechanisms) and also your ostensibly genuine concern around environmental issues, why do you still consistently ignore the diet issue?
I feel that no one is addressing the OTHER part of this blog.. the bit about the seal hunt.
@Michael Francis
Would you care to respond to any of those who have refuted your claims that the “little baby white coats that appear on youtube being clubbed to death are no longer hunted” and “Seals are not skinned alive”.
“…a far worse industry than meat producers in terms of global impact and environmental impact”
I understand what you’re getting at here, but there’s a lot to be said for one living with one’s contradictions. Paul has chosen to look out for animals, already making a big difference for the environment for the better. The fact that his plastic coat is bad for the Earth doesn’t change all the benefits of living cruelty free.
And the seal hunt? I think the Canadian government can find another way of keeping the aboriginal populations going. How about some education and then some real jobs??
Why I am a vegetarian.
http://www.sprword.com/videos/earthlings/