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 4x4s 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.
Cult of Realism,
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.
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.
@Zoo Keeper
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.
Stick to looking after your zoo.
@Perry Curling-Hope
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.
@Michael Francis
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
@Perry Curling-Hope
You cannot stop progress.
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.
@Michael Francis
Thanks for your comment of NAFTA.
Another contibutor claiming free trade cannot be blamed for anything as it does not exist is trying to deflect analysis of a very real problem.
This document posted earlier is a critique of NAFTA not an endorsement of it. http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4794
If NAFTA affected family farmers in Canada, imagine how much more “free trade” affects tiny farmers in Africa and India?
Clean Air
I’m not touting anything, I’m commenting on the status quo and what the impediments are to implementing what you advocate.
If you want that kind of fight of input versus output, take it to SASOL and their fertilizer section who push the input version.
You will agree though that current farming methods tend to disregard crop rotation and instead focus on profitable crops.
I like what you advocate, but pick your fights with the right people.
And if what you’re saying is so good on the financial side, why is it not being implemented asap?
Why are farmers not using it?
I found this interesting:
Al Gore Speaks Out On Animal Agriculture
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.
Cuba boosts production with low-input agriculture:
http://78.47.137.204/gentech/2001/Aug/msg00073.html
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: http://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. http://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.
Lets get to the nub of things.
Poverty, Global Trade Justice, and the Roots of Terrorism
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/15-6
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.
@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.
@aragorn does your anarchism allow room for meat eaters?
Now this may be a good topic for another blog. anarchism is so misunderstood you do not even need to wear black.
@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.
@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.
One of the first people to write about this was Brian Dominick: http://zinelibrary.info/files/animalandrevolution.pdf
“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
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganarchism
Goes to show that a lot of vegans are *far* from single issue
@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!
@ Clean Air
Every success with your mission then!:)
@Aragorn
Thanks for the cartoon link. That was my argument about our last general election in SA.
In more ways than one I am an anarchist but did not know it. Maybe not a pure anarchist but very strong leanings.
Thanks for clarifying.
Beanie,
Regarding urbanization trends;
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.
Eventually they will no longer have this choice.
@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!
Why I am a vegetarian.
http://www.sprword.com/videos/earthlings/