Excellent discussion of the crop deaths issue that meat eaters keep bringing up. He explains, in detail, the statistics to the inefficiency of animal agriculture.
The Vegan Answer to Meat Eater's Crop Death Argument
- Thread starter LoreD
- Start date
Great video, thanks for sharing.
Who is that clown in the first Joe Rogan video? Looks like Ted Nugent?
Who is that clown in the first Joe Rogan video? Looks like Ted Nugent?
Last edited:
Graeme M
Forum Legend
It's good to see someone explaining that particular paper, given it is wheeled out at every opportunity by critics of veganism. Critics rarely understand just what that paper is telling us. However, I don't think that Debug Your Brain has quite made the killer counter to the crop deaths argument so high fives might be a bit precipitous.
The reason I think this is that I don't believe he is addressing the actual claim being made. Critics like Diana Rogers are not trying to defend CAFO meat production, rather they are saying that ethical animal production using extensive grazing systems will always cause fewer animal deaths than replacing those products with crops. The question is, are they right? Like I have said before, probably. I'd like to see him address the problem from that angle.
That said, as a general claim about food production averaged worldwide, a vegan-friendly diet will always result in fewer animals harmed while we continue with CAFO systems.
The reason I think this is that I don't believe he is addressing the actual claim being made. Critics like Diana Rogers are not trying to defend CAFO meat production, rather they are saying that ethical animal production using extensive grazing systems will always cause fewer animal deaths than replacing those products with crops. The question is, are they right? Like I have said before, probably. I'd like to see him address the problem from that angle.
That said, as a general claim about food production averaged worldwide, a vegan-friendly diet will always result in fewer animals harmed while we continue with CAFO systems.
Last edited:
The question is whether we would use all of the land presently being farmed to produce food for animals. It takes 10 pounds of feed to get 1 pound of meat. Which means most of this land would be rewilded. There would be an increase in food produced for humans, but the overall farmland would be reduced dramatically.
Beef cattle
As of 2013 in the US, an FCR calculated on live weight gain of 4.5–7.5 was in the normal range with an FCR above 6 being typical.[8] Divided by an average carcass yield of 62.2%, the typical carcass weight FCR is above 10. As of 2013 FCRs had not changed much compared to other fieldsIf the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
If the world adopted a plant-based diet, we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
We could reduce the amount of land used for grazing and croplands used to grow animal feed.
ourworldindata.org
Graeme M
Forum Legend
I disagree with you in the context of the crop deaths argument. Taken as some kind of broad generalisation about the global consequence of the whole world being vegan, yes, that is true as I said above. But. Veganism is a personal ethical commitment to behaving in certain ways and what really matters is what each of us chooses to do. For now, the very few vegans in the world are not really affecting anything in terms of the consequences of their buying choices.
That is why I say DYB is not really tackling the issue. What matters is what is best to do for ourselves.
Viewed purely as a strategy to cause the fewest animal deaths, buying plant-based foods from typical commercial outlets is probably not the best option. That is what critics are saying. My answer is to say that is not what veganism is about, which is why trying to prove which food system is best on a global basis is somewhat irrelevant.
There used to be an awesome blog post on a blog called “The Flaming Vegan” that looks at the studies behind the “Crop-based mouse deaths” but I’m afraid it somehow has been removed.
Basically it was a deeper look into the study where field mice had been fitted with transponders, and the DETAILS of the study showed, yes, a year after mowing the field, a majority of the monitored field mice had perished, but most of them had actually been killed by predators (and not by the big, evil harvester)
Basically it was a deeper look into the study where field mice had been fitted with transponders, and the DETAILS of the study showed, yes, a year after mowing the field, a majority of the monitored field mice had perished, but most of them had actually been killed by predators (and not by the big, evil harvester)
Lou
Forum Legend
It's been a while since I read the study, but I thought it wasn't "a year" but like the next day.
Do field mice even have a life expectancy of a year.
1.It is more efficient to eat vegetables than to feed vegetables to farm animals and to eat the flesh of the animal. One point in hand is that animals use most of their food energy to live rather than create flesh. Therefore more plant matter would be used feeding a flesh eating society than a vegan society., even taking account that farm animals eat grasses that humans don't, more crops would be planted.
2. More animals and wildlife are also killed in the meat industry than only the lives those animals sold to be eaten as well, it is not only buying vegetables from such farms it is also all the meat products as well the cause killing of wildlife.
3. A flesh eating society would have less need to change the farming methods that allow crop deaths than a vegan society.
2. More animals and wildlife are also killed in the meat industry than only the lives those animals sold to be eaten as well, it is not only buying vegetables from such farms it is also all the meat products as well the cause killing of wildlife.
3. A flesh eating society would have less need to change the farming methods that allow crop deaths than a vegan society.
Graeme M
Forum Legend
Yes, as a broad generalisation this is true. And it's also true that the average vegan must be causing fewer animals to be harmed than the average non-vegan. But the actual argument used is not that; rather, it is whether one always does more harm to eat animals. And THAT answer is less clear.
Here is an example of how it might be less harmful. I have a friend who farms sheep for wool and meat. She is a very high welfare farmer with limited supplementary feeding. She kills a sheep or two each year for herself to eat. Now, would it be wrong of me to eat some of that meat? Well, on the face of it yes. But, if all we care about is the number of animals harmed for my food, probably not. If I ate enough meat to meet half my protein needs for a year, it'd likely be less than one of her sheep. Perhaps half a sheep. That is very little harm indeed; if I ate commercial plant-based food instead, perhaps several hundred, maybe even several thousand animals may have been killed.
That's why the problem isn't just about the numbers of animals killed and why I don't think it's worth the debate. The reason we try to live according to vegan ethics is simple - to be fairer to other animals. That's it.
Last edited:
My issue with your friend is that one is just never enough. After she has eaten the sheep and the meat has gone off will she not repeat the process? If every day it is hundreds in a year. Eating one or half an animal highlights the futility of it being not necessary.
Graeme M
Forum Legend
To be clear, farming animals for food and wool is not consistent with veganism, so I am not making that point. What I am saying is that if I (or anyone else really) accept the gift of meat from my friend, or even if I buy it, then in terms of animal harms I am likely to be causing fewer deaths. The crop death claim from critics is that vegans cause more harm/death when we factor in the animals killed to grow crops. In most everyday cases, that isn't true. But, it can be true, such as in my example here. Eating only plant-based foods is not guaranteed to always be least harm.
As to my friend, she is an amazing person and really, while we continue to farm animals I want more like her. As to how many animals she directly kills for food in a year, it is actually quite few. But, she does send quite a few off to be slaughtered commercially.
Last edited:
Thankyou for explaining clearly and I wish you both happiness and peace.
im from the agriculture background. your not going to be able to change my mind but give me your bizarre thoughts about the beef/meat indusrty
Brian W
Conscientious Christian
I'm from an agricultural background. You're not going to be able to change my mind but give me your bizarre thoughts about the beef/meat industry.
As you don't seem very educated, I thought I would rewrite your post in proper English for you.
uh thanks? Im just trying to write a paper for school. i don't need an English lesion.
Elementary school? Proper grammar, spelling and punctuation are highly considered in grading papers.
Keeping an open mind to study all aspects of an argument without prejudice is a sign of intellect.
Another good article on the topic…
www.surgeactivism.org
DEBUNKED: Do vegans kill more animals through crop deaths? — Surge | Creative Non-Profit for Animal Rights
Ted Nugent went on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast in 2018 and claimed that those who follow a vegan lifestyle are responsible for more animal deaths through the harvesting of crops and use of fertilisers and pesticides than people who choose to consume animals directly. Is there any substance to t
www.surgeactivism.org
