I decided to write a follow-up piece to my last blog about the meat industry. I wish to clarify a few points and add to the debate some more information that is often unclear or misused. I do make a clear distinction between different types of farms and different farming practices. There are too many comments for me to respond to individually and so I hope to respond to them here, if indeed they are worth responding to. I do acknowledge that there are serious problems with factory farming and I clearly support small-scale local producers who practise ethical farming techniques.
There are some serious flaws in the anti-meat lobby arguments as well a general lack of knowledge. Fighting from a position of ignorance can only make you look a fool. Others fight from an ideological position so no amount of information or argumentation will sway them so I will not try. On that note I wish to address the claims that I am “speciest” and that I am prejudiced towards different species.
I am tempted to be factious and say that I eat them all equally, but instead I will point out that I do clearly draw a distinction between animals and humans. That should be clear from my previous blog. I raise and kill animals for food. So do not bother to point out that I am “speciest” — it’s silly and redundant and wastes space and time in the comments section. What we try and do is ensure that their lives are as comfortable and pain-free when they are in our care. The only reason they are in our care is that they are to be eaten. I have been completely open and honest about this. How about some real debate and dialogue about factual claims and not over-inflated rhetoric?
The anti-meat lobby keeps pointing out how much land is under pasture compared to other forms of food production. This argument is flawed and nonsensical and you would know that if you actually farmed. All land is not equal and to pretend it is a) is either a lie or b) shows ignorance of facts. We buy barley off of a farm only 20km away from our farm. This farmer can produce barley at 95 bushels/acre compared to our farm that could only produce 35 bushels/acre. He does not produce wheat as his land is better suited to grow barley with the type of soil found there. Barley does not make suitable flour. Oats can also be grown at his farm, but again does not make good flour and is typically eaten rolled (Jungle Oats) or as animal feed. Wheat grows better on the prairies to the south and is not economically viable at his place. Little differences in regions make huge differences in types of crops grown.
To claim that the world can just transform all arable land into bean production or other crops is false.
In South Africa (and elsewhere), many crops are grown outside of their normally suitable crop-land through the use of massive amounts of fertilisers and through some use of genetically modified crops. I am certain the vegans would not wish for their soy beans to be GM so they can be grown in other locations. Maybe I am wrong and maybe someone from the Vegan Society of South Africa could respond to that?
Other false claims are related to the amount of grain used to produce one kilogram of meat. One person claimed that it takes 8kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. This is also untrue and falls apart under scrutiny. It takes 1kg of grain to produce 1kg of chicken, 2kg of grain to produce 1kg of lamb. Cattle are the highest but I do not have a figure for that as we do not raise cattle. It is also difficult to accurately state a figure for any of the meats as a general rule because of different farming conditions. If cattle are free-range and only brought in and fed grain for the last two months of their life then the amount is lower. If the pasture is poor and they are supplemented with grain throughout their lifecycle it is higher. If they are just grass-fed it falls to 0kg. Most grass-fed cattle are raised in areas that are not suitable for grain crops anyways. Also the grain being fed is also typically barley or oats that do not make decent flour and cannot always be produced in the same areas as wheat/rice/name-that-staple.
The claim that meat are pumped full of growth hormones is inaccurate or overstated at best. I do not know of a single Canadian producer, and I would guess the same for South Africa, that uses growth hormones. If they are used I would not condone it and abhor factory-style conditions that would be necessary to be able to use most of them. There is only one growth hormone that can be administered by feed and that is MGA (melengestrol acetate) and it is a synthetic form of progesterone. The rest would need to be injected, a costly and time-consuming act. They are also injected by use of an ear implant. Grain is cheap, easy and available and the market has shifted to make the use of hormones undesirable. The European Union has banned Canadian beef that contains growth hormones that puts more pressure on the industry to not use them since the late 1990s.
And a little factoid for you is that oestrogen, among other hormones, is also found in some of the vegetables and plants we eat such as cabbage and soybeans. Soybean oil is quite high as one tablespoon of soy oil has 28.750ng (nanograms) while beef has 3.8ng for a six ounce steak that is raised with supplemental hormones. But do not panic as the human male produces 136 000ng daily so soy oil will not make you grow breasts. Most of this is destroyed by your digestive tract anyways. While the science used by the industry seems to deem it safe I would rather see it not being used at all and hope to see the world go the way of the EU with their bans. My contention on this point is the dishonesty in the representation of so-called mass use of hormones.
Claims made that wildlife is routinely killed to ensure the safety of herd animals need to be taken seriously. Our farm uses dogs as a means of predator control and we have never lost a sheep or lamb to coyotes that are very populous in the area (we also have lynx, wolf, cougar and bear in the region, but rarely seen). The use of poisons by some is despicable and should be banned.
As for organic, I am all for it with provisions attached. It is not a catch-all panacea as often stated. The process to be listed as certified organic is a bureaucratic and logistical nightmare. We are almost organic as are most of our neighbours who run small farms. Yet we use the antibiotic penicillin on sheep that are injured if we need to stave off an infection. If we were organic that ewe would need to be culled from the flock even though that penicillin would have no effect on the meat quality of her offspring. This year was a drought year in Alberta which affected grass quality and quantity. We did not produce enough hay for the winter so we were forced to purchase hay. The hay came from a farm that does not use artificial fertilisers, but is not certified organic. That would make us lose our designation as organic. As time goes on we may try to get certified as it does raise the price of our lamb, but until the hay and barley producers locally do the same it is not possible or cost-effective to do so. If we used organic crops we would also raise our carbon footprint by having to truck in the feed from far away. In time that may be reduced and possible, but is not right now.
Also organic does not mean it has been farmed with green technologies. Most farms that are or seek to be organic are environmentally conscious, but still use diesel and other products. Things are getting better and practices are improving, but I still am a bigger advocate of buy local and support ethically farmed meats as opposed to just organic and if you can find both, that is great and I fully support that.
The claims being made about the wasting of water are also false and a misrepresentation of the water-cycle. Water does not just get used up. It passes through from natural sources through animals, back into the environment, returns as rain etc. Problems with water use and water waste are when deep-well aquifers are emptied for golf courses in Arizona and cities in the desert-like Los Vegas. Water is scarce in Southern Africa, but that is not because of the farm animals.
The methane argument that ruminants expel masses of gas that contributes to global warming is true. They do emit methane and anyone who has been in a barn with a cow knows this to be true. They fart a lot and much is expelled through their mouths as well when they regurgitate to chew their cud (to ruminate is not just for philosophers). I know there is a joke in here about bean-eating hippies and their gas, but will avoid that as it is more of a problem at yoga studios than a mass contributor to global warming. North America used to have millions of bison on the prairies. They were hunted almost to extinction and their habitat has been turned to wheat and cattle production. They would have emitted methane at a similar rate to the cattle and would have out-numbered cattle in their hey-day. Should we cull all wild ruminants that would contribute to global warming? I think the focus here is misleading and there are other threats that should be dealt with such as coal-fired electricity plants and enormous 4×4s and especially the war machines that currently ravage Iraq. What is the true cost of such a war? Much more than cow farts. And cow manure is also a carbon sink as it is applied to fields as fertiliser. And as for the vegan movement would they advocate the use of chemical fertilisers? Without additions your soil will be depleted in a one to two-year cycle without fertiliser of some sort. Without animal sources there is not enough plant waste to be used.
One critic of my last blog wrote about perma-culture as an alternative to factory farms. I like the concept of perma-culture and think more people should grow a few vegetables in their gardens even in the city centres. If you live in an apartment at least plant some window boxes with herbs. I think too many people are disconnected from nature and from food production (not necessarily mutually exclusive). Having your children grow some back-yard carrots teaches them something and is easy to do. In Durban I had a series of plant pots that grew herbs (I never had to buy them) and a small garden plot. Admittedly the snails and caterpillars ate most but finding out what grows and what doesn’t was fun and gets one outside. I recommend carrots, any of the peppers and tomatoes. I do not recommend cauliflower, broccoli or lettuce.
If it was allowed I would suggest that each household have two egg-laying chickens. We have ten and cannot eat all the eggs produced. The dogs eat scrambled eggs quite often and we give away many as well. Two chickens will produce two eggs most days for almost seven years. They happily eat your lawn clippings, vegetable waste and weeds from the garden.
I have found that vegans are often extremists that hide behind their selective use of facts. By discussing everything in global terms they condemn small-hold environmentally conscious farms as being the same as mass ranches burnt into the landscape of the Amazon rainforest. If everyone bought local or at least refused to buy meat from the Amazon then there would be no clear-cutting and back-burning there. To link meat eating to human-on-human violence is absurd. To select one example as indicative of the entire meat industry is crude and unfair. The SA Vegan Society uses battery farms as an example of why not to eat eggs and here is a simple solution to raise your own. Vegans even condemn the use of honey making the claim that it is “environmentally unfriendly”. Bees (wild or domestic) pollinate flowers and plants. Their views are extreme and even a little silly. I do recommend you check out their website. What a quick read there does is show that their beliefs are just that, beliefs. All of the fear-mongering and over-inflated rhetoric is just ideology not founded on science or reason. And I am fine with them holding those beliefs, but ask for them to refrain from the lies and misrepresentation. I looked at other vegan websites and they clearly and upfront state an ideological position and clearly state it is a belief system and not science that structures their actions and eating practices.
I am also curious as to the vegan stance on household pets? I had two dogs and four cats in South Africa that were all rescues of some sort. Are they my prisoners? And should they be raised on beans? They are being shipped to Canada in the new year in case anyone is wondering what I did/will do with them. And I love them, but will not eat them [more speciest behaviour].
One final point is that everything we do needs balance and we do need to refrain from excesses. So do reduce the amount of meat eaten and you can grade it in terms of energy inputs. If you feel that the beef industry is problematic then buy lamb or chicken. Know where your food comes, and how it is produced. Demand free-range chickens and eggs if you cannot or do not wish to produce them yourself. Do not eat McDonald’s or other fast foods that do not tell you where their ingredients are from or where you know them to be problematic. Do try and live ethically but save me the hyperbole and lies.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 at 11:28 pm and is filed under Lifestyle.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
76 Responses to “Ethical farming, part two”
[…] Thought Leader » Michael Francis » Ethical farming, part two www.thoughtleader.co.za/michaelfrancis/2009/11/10/ethical-farming-part-two – view page – cached I decided to write a follow-up piece to my last blog about the meat industry. I wish to clarify a few points and add to the debate some more information that is often unclear or misused. I do make… Read moreI decided to write a follow-up piece to my last blog about the meat industry. I wish to clarify a few points and add to the debate some more information that is often unclear or misused. I do make a clear distinction between different types of farms and different farming practices. There are too many comments for me to respond to individually and so I hope to respond to them here, if indeed they are worth responding to. I do acknowledge that there are serious problems with factory farming and I clearly support small-scale local producers who practise ethical farming techniques. Read less […]
@Michael: I feel like I should write my own blog in response
1) You are right in saying 8kg of feed (8-20 actually, depending on production technique) are needed for 1kg of beef, not 1kg of lamb or chicken. However, the Standard Western Diet is dependent upon a large amount of beef and therefore this is a highly relevant issue. It’s also important to look at land and water use, as I keep insisting…which brings us to the water cycle issue.
2) SA indeed has a looming water crisis (the notorious Dr Anthony Turton is very clear on some of the inputs and outputs of the local water supply).
While, as any 3rd grader will tell you, the water we use indeed returns to the water cycle, that doesn’t mean it is still usable. For instance, evaporated water will often rain out over the oceans. Water retrieved from meat processing plants is often highly contaminated. Sewage is often not too well treated in SA…So the quality of cycled water tends to diminish, hence the concerns around water use.
Your argument about buffalo and GHG is flawed for a few reasons: a) historically, buffalo were nowhere near as populous as ruminant livestock, b) ruminant livestock release more GHG per head, c) arguing based on historical precedents is meaningless; we need to analyse the situation as it stands, not diminish it based on some hazy notion of similar conditions persisting in time immemorial.
What about genetically engineered recominant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) better known as rBST used by dairy farmers in South Afica? It was not approved in Canada in the mid 1990’s due to animal rights concerns, but advocasy groups in the USA where it is also used quote peer reviewed scientific studies to showing it increases breast colon and bone and prostrate cancer in humans, other reports claim it causes multiple births in humans drinking milk from cows injected with rBST.
Two thirds of cattle slaughtered in the USA are thought to have been pumped full of growth hormones. I will be researching the South African situation and get back to you.
I’m worried about the straw man misrepresentation you make of the SA Vegan Society - all the directors are rationalists who support the scientific process. In fact, some of us are actually Mensans - a scientifically minded bunch I’m sure you’ll agree
We certainly don’t misrepresent the facts, or we’d be relying on the cultish rhetoric of ‘Supreme Master Ching Hai’ and spreading the word that going vegan would save the world in 80 days…Hardly
I don’t find our conclusions on the egg industry (battery or home) problematic in the slightest, for reasons actually quite logically explained in our piece you cite. You might still disagree with the fundamental ethical assumptions we make, but that’s a subjective discussion around categorical imperatives, not an excuse to attack our application of critical thinking and empiricism
As for discussing everything in global terms, well, it’s no use endorsing something that can’t be meaningfully extrapolated to service anything more than a niche industry and also no use ignoring the externalities of your production and consumption; the Amazon, for instance, is a vital part of the global demand for meat.
As for pets, I like what Gary Francione says: don’t domesticate, but do support current domesticates.
You have gone in beyond ypouur depth again to save face. Bad move.
You say “The anti-meat lobby keeps pointing out how much land is under pasture compared to other forms of food production.”
I am a vegetarian and have debated meat scoffers for years, I have never used this argument nor seen my fellow anti-meaties use it.
The rest of that paragraph is anecdotal and could be contradicted by any Tom, Dick or Harry on the next farm. Not good journalism in my opinion.
You then say “To claim that the world can just transform all arable land into bean production or other crops is false.” Please elaborate, I don’t have a clue what you’re getting at.
Your next paragraph does not make sense either. You do not need to grow crops with massive amounts of fertilizer or use GM crops to get high yields even if they are grown out of their “outside of their normally suitable crop-land” area. If the land and climate are suitable for a crop, organic methods have proven to give similar yields to chemical industrial methods of farming, despite what agro-chemical spin doctors say. In addition, there is tons of evidence to show that GM crops seldom yield more than non-GM crops, they use more herbicide and fertilizer, yes. GM soya, the most widely grown GM food crop in the world yields 5-10% less than high yielding non-GM varieties.
Vegans and vegetarians don’t need to eat chemically produced crops or GM crops, there are superior higher yielding more environmentally friendly production methods.
No one ever claimed organics solves everything but its a lot better for human health and the environment than chemical industrial farming. Give us a balanced incisive article on agro-ecological farming and how to solve starvation, hunger, reduce climate change, stop agri-chemical pollution and we will forgive you for these last two articles. You will have to forget your Canadian farming experience, that is so far removed from agro-ecology its scary, but with 9.2 billion mouths to feed by 2050 we have to change our mind sets and think outside the box.
O, and Michael, don’t forget to put in a few paragraphs about world population trends, why populations increase, why they naturally decrease, sub-fertility rates etc. Just something to shut up the simpletons who always blame overpopulation instead of overconsumption, while these same simpletons praise free trade and the free market systems that causes increased poverty levels, and hunger and starvation, and overconsumption and cliamte change etc.
The allusion to being ’speciest’ is a strawman, as is lumping all of your critics into the bestiality-loving hippie vegan camp by suggestion / insinuation.
I personally think PETA are a bunch of tools. I love a good omlette from time to time and I like cheese on my pizza.
The truth is that meat and dairy farming, on average, when measured in terms of energy outputs for human consumption, is less efficient (per units of input) than vegetable farming.
By all means, offer a more nuanced and measured argument in terms of (i) buying local and (ii) being an ethical consumer. That is sensible.
Some references to the claims you make (of the effects on water usage and general effects on the environment) would support your argument. The claims themselves don’t really square up to the research I’ve read, and without them your argument seems more reliant on argument from personal experience.
Well put! It is all about balance and that is what is missing in so many of our lives. Good idea about the chickens - really must get us some instead of just thinking about doing so.
We currently host female dogs for SA Guide Dogs and are the proud grandparents of nine new hopefuls! Would vegans also ban guide and service dogs? The joy of walking down the rivers with a trio of joyous Labradors is unequalled now that I can no longer ride endlessly across the veld.
You seem to say that because you have been open about your difference in attitude between species - happy to kill animals (or have someone else do it for you) but not happy to kill humans - that the ’speciest’ accusation is ’silly, redundant and a waste of commentary space.’
Care to elaborate. What you said wasn’t a counter-argument it was a puerile dismissal. Much in the same way that I’d imagine slave-owners would dismiss arguments that they were racist for exploiting a different race.
Thanks Micheal for a sensible outlook from someone actually involved in farming and not throwing brickbats at it from a comfortably ethical couch in suburbia.
There are many, many problems in food production and supply across the whole world, the treatment of animals in the process being part of it. However, to strive to remove animals from the equation is not the solution.
“The process to be listed as certified organic is a bureaucratic and logistical nightmare”
Correct.
However it gives the consumer a benchmark and a right to choose between food that could be highly contaminated with chemical fertilizers, growth hormones, overuse of anti-biotics, harmful pesticides and herbicides.
If all farmers were ethical there would have been no need to go through the beurocratic process of organic certification just to get a meal of wholesome food.
organics supporter on November 12th, 2009 at 7:50 am
@Michael Francis - “There are some serious flaws in the anti-meat lobby arguments as well a general lack of knowledge”
1) And absolutely no flaws in the massive amount of spin and propaganda put out by the meat industry?
2) And meat eaters are a highly educated and informed group of people?
3) Why are we an “anti-meat lobby”? We are not lobbyists. The meat industry pay huge sums of money to lobbyists, we are sensitive intelligent individuals who have chosen not eat meat for various reasons. We may not be perfect but I bet if you took a cross section of non-meat eaters and a cross section of meat eaters, we may just tip them on intelligence and knowledge tests.
Peter Pumpkin Eater on November 12th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Thank you Michael for telling us how ethical farming operates in Canada.
Now we need to take ethical farming global.
Basically industrial agriculture has failed to feed the world. It would be ethical if we can introduce sustainable farming to those milllions of people who go to bed hungry.
You are writing for a South African audience, we should be discussing concepts such as food sovereignty vs food security, chemical industrial farming vs organic farming vs agro-ecological farming.
Free trade - northern countries dumping their subsidised agricultural produce on Africa at below production costs and pushing small scale African farmers off the land exacerbating famine.
Improving education in sustainable farming methods and what the real causes of poverty and hunger are.
Is promoting meat consumtion in third world countries the way to go, or is it inefficient use of scarce resources, environmentally destructive, expensive?
In my experience, a wholesome vegetarian diet is tasty, nutritious, healthier and cheaper than going the meaty route.
Blah blah fishpaste on November 12th, 2009 at 8:17 am
@Michael Franics - my previous post refers.
If you decide to tackle the pressing issue of poverty and global hunger, which I think is very much an ethical agricultural and trade issue, good links are:
1) Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy: www.foodfirst.org/
@Judith: Saying ‘it’s just about balance’ is a completely meaningless statement. Can you imagine a slave-owner telling an abolitionist ‘it’s just about balance’? Moderation is good in one’s personal life, sure, but not in how one exploits or infringes upon the fundamental rights of others.
Service dogs are an interesting marginal issue, and something vegans / animal rights people disagree on (which is good - it shows that we’re a group of critically minded individuals, not the unthinking zealots we’re caricatured as). My personal view, as someone who lives with a rescued dog, is that it’s fine to train the non-humans you look after to be able to co-habit successfully with you (which includes not pooping on the carpet, for instance), but not to fulfil a function that is not in their interests and not trained using choke chains or other abusive practices (like poorly treated police dogs).
Guide dogs fall somewhere along this continuum - I don’t see too much of a problem if there is reciprocal love and respect between guider and guidee, which I assume there usually would be, but I do see a problem if they’re bred (rescues can be trained for this function) or part of some kind of industry.
I don’t trust the opinion on this matter, of someone who relies on animal farming, or who has family who rely on animal farming, for their livelihood.
Whether you hug the animal beforehand or not, you’re still sending it to be slaughtered. It’s like religious people proclaiming their religions to be ones of piece while they support bombings overseas, or ritual beheadings because their god told them to.
@organics supporter: Indeed - hard work now in committing to certification standards, etc. will undoubtedly pay off later. Nobody said doing the right thing was always easy.
@Blah blah fishpaste: thank you for illustrating so clearly that the anti-meat ‘lobby’ are far from single issue and are in fact, more often than not, aware of how animal issues intersect with politics, economics, environmentalism, etc.
Personally I find venison to be much tastier and healthier than beef as it has very little fat content.
I know the vegan’s are concerned about nature but, as a conservationist, wildlife will not survive human depredation of habitat if it doesn’t have commercial value.
That is unfortunately the truth of the matter, no amount of name-calling and pontificating can change that.
The same is true for other crops and famines. Ethiopia for example, plenty of food just none of it going to the locals. All Live Aid had to tell us was not to buy from the purchasers and ensure that produce went back to the locals.
Similarly there is a problem with bio-ethanol and the agricultural demands of the energy crop as against natural bush and food crops.
Crop farmers grow whatever crop they can get the most cash for. Its a helluva risky business not least because of weather patterns so they have no other option but to maximise income as and when they can. Unfortunately, because of the commercial demands, farmers plant crops with little regard for rotation and therefore have to use chemical fertilizers etc.
The notion of crop rotation and ethical farming practices are fantastic, but it has to make commercial sense.
If the nay-sayers of Mike’s farming can come up with commercially viable solutions and not emotive name-calling, it would be a start.
“North America used to have millions of bison on the prairies. They were hunted almost to extinction and their habitat has been turned to wheat and cattle production. They would have emitted methane at a similar rate to the cattle and would have out-numbered cattle in their hey-day.”
Convert that to organic wheat production and you will sequester or remove CO2 from the atmosphere instead of adding it. Good idea yes.
Ranchland cattle do not add nearly as much methane to the atmosphere as do factory farmed cattle.
As you say, when the buffalo roamed we did not have coal stacks and millions of petroleum vehicles, so it did not matter.
I grew up on farms somewhat like the one you describe. We had sows to whom the boar was actually brought in season (great entertainment for kids), chickens who got culled every now and then, fruit and veg.
I know of very few farms like that today in South Africa. While our farms are not as bad as those in the USA, they’re moving in that direction. Vegans are driven by ideology very often, and I understand that - anyone who has known a chicken personally and then been physically to a battery farm would surely understand - but why not pay attention to the vegetarians and semi-vegetarians who take issue with you? They are often more motivated by practical concerns relating to the environment, health and economic ills.
Some facts you might want to think about:
* There are 1.5 BILLION cattle in the world today, 101.5 million of them in the USA alone. At their height, according to the US Fish and Wildlife service, there were somewhere between 30 and 75 MILLION bison - not comparable.
* Clearing land for beef cattle drives about 50-80% of deforestation in the Amazon (depending on whether you get your facts from meat producers or international bodies). The Amazon is one of the most important sinks for carbon in the world, and furthermore, it drives much of our weather/climate. No space for references, but there are ample scientific works on this.
To be continued
Continued:
* The Amazon is important because the worldwide demand for beef is driven by fashions, led by the USA. Amazon land is largely ranched to feed the hamburger eaters in the USA. In my youth farmers would kill a sheep occasionally or a chicken once a week and use it over an extended period; today, we demand that we should get chicken breast whenever and wherever we want it. This is bad for the planet and for us - a study in the March 23 issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine showed that men and women who ate the most red and/or processed meat were likely to die significantly sooner - of cancer and heart disease mainly - than theer peers.
* Oestrogen is not a growth hormone, so you really shouldn’t use that as an argument. rBST has been used in SA, but it seems the tide is flowing against it, with PnP and Woowlworths taking a stance against it.
You accuse the vegans of arguing from the global and ignoring the particular (your little farm and its ilk). But you do the opposite - argue from the particular as though it had a real impact on the global. Eg: manure as a carbon sink because it’s applied to fields? Yes, on your farm maybe, but most manure from the feedlot industry washes away into rivers, killing off fish and causing massive problems.
You seem as emtionally invested in your ideas as any extreme vegan in theirs. Be practical!
If everyone were to mind their business, in accordance with their own world view, and not manifest the urge to mind everyone else’s, then there would be room for all.
If one harbors a fervent belief that a particular agricultural model (e.g. small scale ‘organic’, forsaking GM crops, industrial fertilizers and petrochemical inputs) is ‘THE way to go’, then gung ho go for it!
Let it’s brilliant commercial success, (which is presumably inevitable, given it’s superiority over everything else) be it’s own advert, a shining beacon for others to follow and emulate, all wishing to share in the demonstrated productive advantages ( more abundant, lower priced produce of superior quality)
What we do not need is zealous activists and lobbyists who want to ensure the world follows the ‘right’ model (i.e. the one favored by themselves, usually for ideological reasons or based upon belief)
They invariably insist that the efficacy of their system cannot prevail and become dominant unless existent systems are dismantled, not through a voluntary migration of consumer support to their produce but through political coercion.
Hence we have mandated ‘cap and trade’, rules, regulation, bans, and all manner of intervention serving special interest groups, which includes taxpayer subsidies to wealthy agri-business…it’s called corporate welfare statism.
Get the damn politicians out of agriculture!
“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — HL Mencken
Perry Curling-Hope on November 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Thanks, Michael. This is like agri 101; I’m learning a lot. I wish we could apply what you write to the SA context. Our small farmers are often so different, so different things must surely apply?
Who would be a TL? You guys only exist so that the comments can rip you to shreds. Ya, I have my bad days, too.
Interesting point Graham, would you trust a president that announced there were weapons of mass destruction in another country and then declared war on that country even though it had nothing to do with the bombing of towers in your own country and when even the presidents own intelligence services said there were no weapons of mass destruction in th ecountry you declared war on.
Why Guide and Service dogs bred (and rescue dogs are also used) is to ensure healthy animals and good temperaments. If cruelty was used in training them, it would defeat the intention. The relationship between the dogs and their peopple is truly amazing, as is that in any successful animal/person relationship. A high level of trust is involved and may not be broken.
Having worked with horses since the age of seven, I know the joys and frustrations that such relationships bring. When I say work - I mean everything from mucking out to delivering foals. For me, a world without “domestic” animals would be a world stripped of a wondrous joy. My animals have shared my joys and my sorrows. Many are the graves in my gardens past and present. The birth of a puppy or kitten, foal or calf, its growth to adulthood relinks me to nature in all its speldour and cruelty.
@Zoo Keeper: As Bill Hicks once said, ’stop putting a f#$king pricetag on every part of nature!’
Most of the current ecological problems are in fact caused by the exact same mindset you encourage when you claim that nature needs to have commercial value in order to be protected, i.e. the reductionist homogenisation of the world under the single monolithic arbiter, capital.
This is an incredibly myopic and impoverished perspective, and would benefit from an engagement with the platform of Arne Naess’s Deep Ecology movement, especially the following important point: “The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have intrinsic value. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.”
Even if we ignore the richness of approaches like deep ecology, however, electing instead to use hopelessly inadequate market models that assume that the world and its inhabitants are about as complex as Lego blocks, we’re forced to conclude that a proper factoring in of externalities (environmental costs, etc.) renders many of our current practices (including industrial agriculture, plant or animal based) completely commercially unviable & unsustainable.
You can implore us to ‘be realistic’ all you want, but intoning the delusional claims of libertarian fundamentalism will not suffice.
@Becky: Thanks for reiterating the point about the buffalo. At the height of their population, by the way, there were only about 1/20th the amount of buffalo as there are now livestock.
Who do you suggest has the right to decide at what level ‘overconsumption’(sic) commences, and what people ‘should’ have, not have, need, want and what they do not ‘require’?
Hopefully not our current crop of world ‘leaders’, who do themselves and cronies mightily proud at public expense whilst mandating austerity measures for lesser mortals who are their greedy ‘over’ consuming constituents.
‘Free trade’ no longer exists… think NAFTA, GATT, the much maligned ‘farm subsidies’,’ aid’ with so called ‘Structural Adjustment’ conditions attached… these things are created and enforced by politicians and governments, and are INTERFERENCE in the ‘free’ market, rendering it not free anymore and wreaking havoc within the global economy.
The beneficiaries of the application of force and coercion in the marketplace are governments themselves and their corporate ‘public private partnership’ buddies, the losers are the world’s poor.
This again is corporate welfare statism, the anathema of a free market.
Perry Curling-Hope on November 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
@farmgirl: Thanks for your informed additions to this discussion - you make a lot of really good points.
However, is it really necessary to level all the ad hominems at ‘the extremist vegans’? Is there anything I’ve said, for instance, that paints me as an uncritical ideologue who is too emotionally invested in my ideas to see the big picture?
I get the sense you’re vegetarian / semi-vegetarian and feel judged by vegans
I do not have time to respond properly today to some of the comments
The relevance for africa would be to support local food security and diversity of agriculture. Grow appropriate crops in appropriate locations. Karoo lamb is great and cane sustainable and does not waste arable land. allow people to raise urban chickens and eggs. Encourage backyard gardens and fruit trees.
One remark about taking advice from from someone who depends on the meat industry… I works a professor my mother is also a nurse and dad could triple his income running heavy machines for the oil industry.
My parents farm for many reasons that are not economic and most farmers around the world are the same it is about lifestyle independence and a sense of self historically grounded in a specific locale. Its similar reasons I suspect that south african farmers still sometimes literally fight to farm. Loss of land and lifestyle is devastating to a farmer. South africa needs to support farmers and keep food production local.
@Perry Curling-Hope: There is a great irony in the fact that you’re reacting so strongly against us damn meddling vegans and organic farming advocates whilst simultaneously parroting cliched free market dogma (you sound like a cut and paste from www.mises.org mixed with some CEI for good measure) with Reaganesque zeal. In fact you probably believe anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy by some secretive group of green statists who are all colluding to tax you, censor your internet usage and sell you low wattage lightbulbs.
What do you think of Elinor Ostrom winning the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics? It must bug you that she has laid waste to the tragedy of the commons you libertarians are so fond of using in defense of privatizing very square inch of the globe.
You respond to your own question, by the way: how is it possible to demonstrate the optimality of organic farming technologies and processes if there is, as you say, so much interference (e.g. subsidies) in the ‘market’ that your ilk believes magically assigns just and optimal values to all things?
Being a cultural conservative does not solve anything. Being a naysayer does not solve anything either. Labeling visionaries who actually know what they are talking about as activsts does not solve anything either.
You say: “If one harbors a fervent belief that a particular agricultural model (e.g. small scale ‘organic’, forsaking GM crops, industrial fertilizers and petrochemical inputs) is ‘THE way to go’, then gung ho go for it!”
Large scale chemical industrial farming has failed, fact. Look at the USA, without massive government subsidies US agriculture would collapse. GM crops are harmful to human health and the environment. Fact.
These are not fervent beliefs of hippie type activists, independent science has verified there are superior and more productive methods of producing food. It is you who are caught up in fervent beliefs and regularly advocate an unsustainable world order.
Recently I read most of your blogs and left a comment praising your consistent thoughtful writing.
However these last two blogs have indicated a lack of knowledge of the issues you were writing about, hence the huge number of comments.
I appeal to you to read the more informed comments and initiate some real debate on global food and agricultural issues that affect us all.
This is a very important debate, but few journalists have the knowledge or interest in the subject to persue it, and few have the courage because of the flak they get from vested interests, i.e. global agri-business.
I am hoping you with your farming knowledge, your cultural anthopological background, and your great love for South Africa can achieve.
Your comment above about what should be done in South Africa is very superficial and inadequate.
One major issue that has not been addressed here is peak oil. Peak oil is when more oil is needed than can be taken out of the ground. Modern industrial agriculture is extremely dependent on oil. Sooner than expected our oil reserves could run dry. This would be great news for climate change and forcing us to use more envinonmentally friendy agricultural systems.
Of course disaster capitalism will try to use the crises to herd us into some other energy dependency, but no need to panic, for those who understand the gravity of the situation, read:
Hooray for peak oil on November 13th, 2009 at 9:22 am
@Perry Curling-Hope
Your comments on free trade are predictable and the reason you are wrong is you sprout the most regular free trade myths.
I really don’t have time to rebut you but for the sake of anyone interested in the subject, over here you can read up on the myth of the free market, the myth of comparative advantage, the myth of free trade as a development model, and much more:
I can see that you are writing from the heart but if you will permit me I would like to add something to your thoughts that I feel you are missing.
It is fact that humans do not require meat in their diets (if they follow a healthy non-meat diet) so does it not therefore make sense that when faced with the choice between a diet derived through violence (meat) and non-violence (non-meat) that as humans we should choose the non-violent option? Isn’t that what makes us human, that we have choice where animals do not as they simply follow instinct? I think it is simple, humans eat meat (in this century) due to greed (because it tastes nice) and if we really think about what we are doing we would logically choose the “less harmful” option as it is better for all concerned, including the animals.
Just a thought.
I am vegetarian and have no quarrel with vegans whatsoever.
I am opposed to farm subsidies and regulatory mandates on the grounds that it is immoral and socially counterproductive for special interests exercising political influence to secure concessions favourable to their enterprise and be recipients of state largess at public expense.
Such practice distorts a free and fair market and compromises the viability of competitive endeavors (such as third world farmers or the development of smaller scale ‘organic’ agriculture)
There is a difference between ‘advocacy’ and active lobbying to secure politically mandated concession as above; it is not now moral because one believes in one’s cause.
For example, it is true that a vegetarian, (more so vegan) ‘model’ for the world coupled with a much lower energy intensive, less consumptive life would support a lot more people at some ‘acceptable’ level.
There are three problems with this;
Philosophically, who decides that such a result is a nobler outcome than fewer living at a more affluent level, (while the oil lasts)?
Politically, who decides what is legitimate for others to want in this life and what not, i.e. to dictate the ‘acceptable level’?
Practically, most want the things an energy intensive lifestyle brings, which is why people are drawn to urban centers in ‘wealthy’ countries.
Together with Al Gore and Paul Krugman, Ostrom finds herself in (politically) august company indeed.
I agree ‘the commons’ will fare better under user management than regulation by central authorities!
Perry Curling-Hope on November 13th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Wise Old Joe,
Followed your link…agreed.
Briefly, NAFTA is not free trade, even though it is shamelessly named as such by politicians.
That was precisely my point in lumping it together with protectionist subsidies and structural adjustment packages imposed upon third world countries, chiefly by and for the sole benefit of the U.S.
Free trade cannot be blamed for anything because it does not exist today, anywhere.
Perry Curling-Hope on November 13th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
UN Food Summit ‘Fails Before It Begins’
“A UN food summit aimed at helping the one billion people worldwide suffering from hunger has been declared a failure a week before it has even begun.” http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/12-7
The world needs visionaries, and visionaries defy labeling.
Activists who lobby politically do not strive to lead by vision but push by force.
Encouraging visionaries to light our way (without invoking political coercion) is no way nay saying.
If there are superior and more productive methods then let’s have them.
If all that is standing in the way of superior methods gaining hold are the unashamedly immoral subsidies, tariffs and other concessions that have been secured by agribusiness through their political connections, rendering these methods uncompetitive, then let’s have them removed immediately, they should have never been secured in the first place.
Superior and more productive methods will, by definition, be sustainable and competitive without protection and subsidies.
Without subsidies, Big Agribusiness would not collapse; their captains would just be less obscenely wealthy.
This is a political problem, not one of methods of production.
Humans have been genetically modifying food crops for as long as they have practiced agriculture.
I subscribe to the scientific method, which precludes beliefs, fervent or otherwise.
It’s not my place (or anyone else’s) to advocate a world order.
Everyone knows that our fossil based industrial civilization is not ultimately sustainable.
We have the privilege of being the people living on the peak of the ‘fossil spike’.
One day all this will be history.
Perry Curling-Hope on November 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
I just wanted to make a remark about ‘free tade’. Prior to being sheep farmers we were bee keepers. In 1988 NAFTA crushed us as the market was flooded with cheap honey from afar. After we finally quit in despair in 1993, mom went to university became a nurse and we moved north to Athabasca and I moved to the city and began work and eventually study in 1993. The year we quit honey production the price of honey doubled overnight in supermarkets and few producers are left - most run bee farms as a side business among other things. Free trade has never been free and only benefited the large corporations and agribusiness that had the scale to keep going.
I am a farmers son, have studied agriculture, and know that if you don’t watch costs you go bankrupt. Don’t tell Grandama how to suck eggs!
Ever heard of LISA (Low Input Sustainable Agriculture). Using low input cost agriculture you can achieve 90% of the yields with 70% of input costs. That is an extra 10% in your pocket.
US agriculture and the type of farming you and your mates tout is high input agriculture. That is why farmers are always winging about not making a profit and US agriculture needs subsidies.
What America did in the last 40 years was far too free and it has failed, refer recent global financial crises, so why take the experiment further? Its like arguing that communism failed because it was not centrally controlled enough.
The US tried laizzez fraire in 19th and early 20th century and suffered about 8 depressions, that tells you free market does not work.
But in the late 20th century Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz documented how successful the Asian tigers were with their regulated market economies until during a recession the World Bank and IMF imposed their structural adjustment programmes on them, disaster followed.
You can obstuct what I say with right wing spin, but the truth will come out.
If you are still following the comments here is a quote by Obama, whether he will follow through is another story:
“I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollan about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs.”
-Barack Obama, campaigning for the Presidency, during an interview with Joe Klei in TIME, October 23, 2008
More people are becoming vegans and vegetarians, and more meat eaters want “ethically” produced meat or free range eggs.
More people are becoming aware that “free trade” or whatever you want to label it is harmful. More people are concerned about the 800 million starving people in the world and the realisation that our current world order is doing very little to ameliorate the situation.
The demand for organic produce is growning by 30% per year, while the more consumers find out about GM food the less they want it. The call to cut fossil fuel use is growing by the day.
It is not anyone pushing the situation, it is evolving naturally, organically if you wish. No one needs to implement it.
It will become a Tsunami, and the curent failed system of “free trade” (almost free trade or whatever you label it) and chemical industrial agriculture will fall like the Berlin Wall.
Al Gore has finally admitted that meat and animal products are significant contributors to global warming. He now says he has cut back considerably on his meat consumption - his new healthier appearance could be a reflection of his improved diet. In his new book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” he includes a two page photo of a feedlot operation with hundreds of cows. Gore states, “Most of the methane from agricultural operations comes from livestock and livestock waste.” He goes on to say that, “it takes more than seven pounds of plant protein to produce one pound of beef, and more than 6,000 gallons of water.”
A World Watch study we told you about a few weeks ago concluded that animal agriculture is the source of more than half of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. If you haven’t reviewed that report yet, we highly recommend it.
I’m enjoying the sideline discussion around economics that is emerging.
Perry, you raise some good points about the ethical problem with deciding for others. This very problem is why I describe myself as an anarchist - because I believe wholeheartedly in direct democracy and consensus. For me, the radical egalitarian horizontalism of anarchism, with its anti-state, anti-private property, anti-capitalist analyses and also positive alternatives (e.g. Participatory Economics: www.parecon.org) is possibly the most effective way to get from ‘here’ to ‘there’. I also think it tackles the practical problem you mention by encouraging a very different set of values that would heavily mitigate the centralisation of, and subsequent drive towards, extreme wealth.
If you’re not sure what I mean by anarchism, by the way, I’m certainly not referring to chaos, disorder, safety pins in ears or anything like that - I’m referring to the libertarian socialism developed by thinkers like Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon and co. www.infoshop.org/faq explains contemporary anarchism in excruciating detail…as do, strangely enough, the lyrics of John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’
Zoo Keeper: I agree that implementation barriers can be an issue. It’s important to consider the implications of not implementing a certain approach though, i.e. the equally problematic barriers that complacency sets up for us.
Free trade and agricultural markets are strange bedfellows. Low prices paid to producers does not mean cheap products for consumers just more money for the middle man. These big distributors control the whole deal from field to plate.
Michael Francis on November 16th, 2009 at 10:58 am
@Zoo Keeper - “And if what you’re saying is so good on the financial side, why is it not being implemented asap?”
Ignorance my good man, ignorance. They are not trained in low input agriculture at university, I can vouch for that. You have to look outside of universities where the reach of agri-business sponsorship for research does not cloud academia to find real solutions.
Millions of dollars are spent on “technology transfer” to make sure farmers use what makes global agri-business wealthy, even if it is not in the best interests of the farmers, consumers or the environment. But global agri-business have to have thought police and spin doctors to keep the sheeple following the old goat of ignorance.
Michael Francis on November 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
@Aragorn
I like the concept of anarchism. Noem Chompsky is one of my favorite authors and to the best of my knowledge an anarchist.
Anachism has been around for a while but never become popular, I think it is very difficult to sell to a broad based electorate. Ordinary people wants policies in black and white, i.e. free market or centrally controlled. To reach consensus on an issue leaves most people very insecure, they would never vote for such a party.
Voters want concrete promises that will deliver in their best interests, they don’t want someone elses interests to be served in the name of direct democracy, now matter how high minded the principle is. - Your comments.
@Perry
It is not activists who are dictating what must be done, it is large financial interests and dictatorial politicians. The last thing powermongers want is anarchism, then they cannot dictate “free trade” on their terms.
You know as well as I do that you cannot just tell the US government to do away with agricultural subsidies, that is why we need activists to raise public awareness on the issue.
The activists I know are far more open minded and less pedantic or dictatorially minded than the general public.
Cult of Realism on November 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@Michael Francis: That’s an interesting question. Remember, anarchists are not libertines; there’s a strong leaning towards social responsibility / mutual aid in anarchism, something exemplified by studies in your own field on, for instance, the !Kung.
Extending from this, and given that anarchism is fundamentally opposed to exploitative, hierarchical or hegemonic relationships, one can easily construct a cogent argument for animal rights (and therefore veganism) being a necessary part of a properly comprehensive anarchism.
“Only a perspective and lifestyle based on true compassion can destroy the oppressive constructs of present society and begin anew in creating desirable relationships and realities. This, to me, is the essence of anarchy. No one who fails to embrace all struggles against oppression as her or his own fits my definition of an anarchist. That may seem like a lot to ask, but I will never stop asking it of every human being.”
- Brian A. Dominick, Animal Liberation and Social Revolution: a vegan perspective on anarchism or an anarchist perspective on veganism
@Cult of Realism: Chomsky is indeed an anarchist. Just to clarify - anarchists are most emphatically *not* a political party. Instead of vying for political power in the current system, they encourage direct action, revolution, class struggle and the construction of radical alternatives. See the following for one example of the anarchist position on election politics: http://www.nope.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=54
@ aragorn: hey, don’t take things to yourself unless they are specifically aimed at you, bud! You know as well as I do that much of the over-reaction around this issue is a result of very extremist attitudes (not necessarily exhibited by you) which frighten ordinary meat-eaters - you can see similar reactions every time the subject comes up on any forum. Had I meant you, I would have said you. And by the way, my friend, that dukes-up thing you did there - ‘all the ad hominems’ when I only mentioned extreme vegans once - is silly and works against you.
Plus, yes, I am a vegetarian. I have never felt any concerns about being judged by vegans, because I am completely comfortable with my own reasons for eating this way. I really can’t see what makes you bring this up. Do YOU judge vegetarians? Guess you do, else you wouldn’t say this!
Honduras
Urban population: 48% of total (2008)
Rate of urbanization: +2.9% annual rate of change (2005-10)
Guatemala
Urban population: 49% of total (2008)
Rate of urbanization: +3.4% annual rate of change (2005-10)
Sources: Nationmaster, World Factbook
This contrasts with the global average of +1.8%, and scarcely represents success in ‘reversing’ rural migration.
Proposing the eschewing of industrial processes which produce fully half the entire fixed nitrogen available to the planet on the grounds that such is ‘not sustainable’ is not a ‘progressive solution’ to anything.
Everybody knows, or at least some of us know that our entire fossil energy based industrial civilization is not ultimately sustainable.
Is ‘sustainability’ the only criterion by which human action is to be assessed?
The ‘failure’ of the current system focuses upon the 800million, who are primarily victims of regional conflicts and geopolitics (not farming methods), and ignores the 6 billion who are successfully fed. (and often overfed to obesity)
There is no turning the tide as long as an increasing number desire the perceived benefits and trappings of our industrial civilization over an agrarian existence.
Perry Curling-Hope on November 19th, 2009 at 11:21 am
@Perry Curling-Hope
You can do anything you like with statistics and so can I. I (very almost but not quiet) nearly passed the lowest grade in statistics at varsity, what formal training in statistics do you have?
I am very stupid on a lot of things, sorry bout that but what do you mean by “Proposing the eschewing of industrial processes which produce fully half the entire fixed nitrogen available to the planet on the grounds that such is ‘not sustainable’ is not a ‘progressive solution’ to anything.” ? Kindly elaborate. Soory me bit stupid.
If 6 billion are fed to obesity and 800 000 underfed, is there not soemthing wrong, soorie me a beet stupeed??? Please expalin abeet more.
You say “There is no turning the tide as long as an increasing number desire the perceived benefits and trappings of our industrial civilization over an agrarian existence.”
They have to be educated in the difference between percieved benefits and real benefits. Do you agree with that or noT?
michael its so clear to me that you dont know what you are talking about. you really need to do your research before you make such ignorant and completely misleading comments. allow me to educate you with regards to the animal africultural industry being responsible for 80% of global warming! email me if you really want to know facts!
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
I am a cultural anthropologist at Athabasca University who writes about ethnicity, identity and social change in a globalised Southern Africa. I am fascinated by the way in which people find and create their 'identity' in this rapidly changing world. Processes of cultural creativity and regeneration of histories was stark in Southern Africa , but I have found that returning to Canada I was shocked to find the familiar strange and when in Africa to see the strange as familiar. I started to see patterns of life that had once been unsee-able and just matter of fact ways of doing things. I enjoy seeing the patterns of life that inform us; the tropes of life that are silently transmitted from our past. And in our increasingly mass-mediated world how these are visualized, transmitted and transformed.
I have worked with Zulu speakers in the Drakensberg Mountains who claim dual identities of San and Zulu as well as different San communities in South Africa and Botswana. I have a deep love and respect for these rural communities who have been kind, welcome places for me since 2002 when I first moved to South Africa. I am sad to have left South Africa, but will return each year for research and to visit my friends.
I am a pacifist, but love a good verbal fight. My pacifism is based on reason and logic and not religious or spiritual beliefs. If I am not to be found in my office look high up in the mountains as I may be there seeking solace from the cruelty of the world.
Actually many Africans do keep dogs and it is not just the white Africans that do so. There are stereotypes that abound, but like many stereotypes the...
The words custom, culture and tradition are often invoked to shut down debate and discussion instead of used as a meaningful way of explaining a pract...
I decided to write another blog on the topic to further clarify my position on a few issues and to adopt a more conciliatory tone. Too many people are...
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 far...
The focus of this article is on contemporary slavery with some remarks about the past. I am not an expert on the subject, but one does not need to be ...
Loading ...
[more speciest behaviour]. 
[…] Thought Leader » Michael Francis » Ethical farming, part two www.thoughtleader.co.za/michaelfrancis/2009/11/10/ethical-farming-part-two – view page – cached I decided to write a follow-up piece to my last blog about the meat industry. I wish to clarify a few points and add to the debate some more information that is often unclear or misused. I do make… Read moreI decided to write a follow-up piece to my last blog about the meat industry. I wish to clarify a few points and add to the debate some more information that is often unclear or misused. I do make a clear distinction between different types of farms and different farming practices. There are too many comments for me to respond to individually and so I hope to respond to them here, if indeed they are worth responding to. I do acknowledge that there are serious problems with factory farming and I clearly support small-scale local producers who practise ethical farming techniques. Read less […]
(Report abuse)