Crop Deaths

[Rory17]

Hello ,
It is my opinion that it is probably true that a vegan lifestyle and diet still kills fewer animals than an omnivorous diet, even when you take crop deaths into consideration, because, of course, the cattle, pigs, chickens, sheep, turkeys, ducks and goats still need to eat, and are often fed on at least some grain or grain-based feed, of which that grain also, of course, has to be harvested. It also takes more grain to feed a conventionally-raised herd of cattle than it does to produce enough grain to give one person or even a family of four the amount of grain they would eat, even if they were eating a whole-foods vegan diet and, therefore, eating more whole grains than average. It also takes more land to produce food for an omnivore than a vegan, as land is needed to rear the animals, grow food for them and grow fruits, vegetables and grains for the omnivore’s diet (yes, all of those who follow a truly omnivorous diet would eat fruits, vegetables and grains as well as meat and animal products). Whereas, the land required for the vegan’s food would just be the land required for growing crops. That means fewer native wildlife animals dying due to their habitat being destroyed for food production and fewer animals being killed in the harvesting of the crops, and also, of course, no animals being killed intentionally for their flesh (including fish), dairy or eggs.
However, crop deaths do still occur when it comes to feeding vegans. A mouse, a rat, a bird, a snake, a groundhog and a rabbit all have as much right to live as a cow, a pig, a sheep, a chicken, a turkey, a duck or a goat. We need to prioritise all sentient animal life, not just the ones intentionally exploited, abused and killed on farms.
So we need a solution to stop/reduce the number of crop deaths in harvesting. What would be your idea/s for a solution?
Thanks.

 

[Lou]

A mouse, a rat, a bird, a snake, a groundhog and a rabbit all have as much right to live as a cow, a pig, a sheep, a chicken, a turkey, a duck or a goat.

There have been at least 3 studies... I've referenced them in other threads, so I'm not sure I'll bother to do it again. But according to the studies, not that many small animals are killed directly because of agriculture.
in one study they radio tagged mice. And when the mice heard the harvesters coming they ran the other way. Baby mice are probably killed tho.
Also a few days later there were no radio tagged mice anymore. Researchers speculated that the loss of cover increased predation.

Small mammals being killed via agriculture is mostly incidental or accidental. I think if you want to worry about death attributed to agriculture you probably should focus on insect deaths cause insects are targeted by farmers.

And don't forget indirect animal deaths. Like from water pollution and habitat destruction.

But it's still the same argument. the cultivation of crops that are grown to feed animals kill many more animals that the crops that are grown for people.

The least harm lens is probably the best way for us vegans to look at it.

But you are right that we need to be concerned with this and find ways to minimize it.

 

[Tom L.]

I've also heard about this issue. I'm still not convinced that a vegan or vegetarian diet causes as many animal deaths as an omni one, but animals are still dying- and I'm not making light of that.

I think avoiding the waste of food is one easy, efficient way to reduce animal deaths.

 

[Lou]

I'm still not convinced that a vegan or vegetarian diet causes as many animal deaths as an omni one,

Just common sense could be used to conclude that a vegan diet results in far less animal deaths. Beside the obvious killing of animals for meat, the food animals eat crops too. One study stated that chickens eat 3 times as much calories as contained in their meat. And cows are even worse.

but animals are still dying- and I'm not making light of that.

I think avoiding the waste of food is one easy, efficient way to reduce animal deaths.

yes. and its not a vegan only issue. at an organic farm near me they have a person walk ahead of the harvester to look for small animals. And they have bought special harvesters that minimize incidental animal deaths.

 

[silva]

The argument many omnivores will give will be the most ideal grazing land that animals are free to roam and eat. They'll talk about permaculture and how all the waste matter is converted to organic fertilizer. This of course is completely hypothetical. It's much like a woman I used to eat lunch with who raved about the organic meats she ate--but would bring lunch meat or buy lunch about daily

Graeme has made threads about this topic, particularly focusing on the protein from plants compared to meats that get fed plant matter that people don't consume

Fact is, food doesn't have to be grown in fields, there are alternatives.

For now, my perspective is that everything alive is food. The insects and small mammals that can be harmed by combines are food for larger animals, and , as Lou has pointed out, not as many as some will claim. As a human, I don't need to have animals grown to be killed for my food, but I do need food I can afford, and food that is available to the majority.

You know what I'd rather focus on? things like golf courses, almost all lawn care, and cematories where pesticides are overused and human remains rot with chemicals in the caskets

 

[Deleted member 3018]

If possible, growing some of your own food at community gardens.

I hope that permaculture could become more common.
When farming with the use of permaculture ethics and principles, you don't use much or at all machinery.
Not all permaculture farms kill their animals, by the way. Just check out Mossy Bottom.
I'm not saying that Mossy Bottom is perfect either. Of course it would be better to NOT use animals at all.
Like humanure is also used. And green fertilizer.

 

[Deleted member 3018]

Oh damn. I did not word that right.
Animals, or anyone should not be used ever for anything.

What I tried to say is that when a permaculture farm, that is 100% more ethical and effective and environmentally friendly than agricultural farm, has for example, rescued chickens, or pigs or something, their manure can be used in crop growing. Pigs also turn the ground and many animals eat weeds and harmful insects. So it's a win-win.

But this went kinda off topic.
When these kind of animals help with making the land better, no machinery is needed. And so machinery won't kill mice or birds or what ever. And when the animals eat pests and weeds, there is no need for pesticide or herbicide.

 

[Deleted member 3018]

Also, cotton farming is bad for the environment, so buying second hand is a good idea.
A lot of herbicides, pesticides and water goes into that, and so many animals suffer.

 

[Graeme M]

The crop deaths thing is everywhere at the moment. It seems to come in waves and sadly there is no comeback that defuses it properly because no-one actually has any decent numbers to show. A lot of the time people just make it up. My opinion is that on average for someone in an industrialised nation, the vegan will always cause fewer animals to be harmed than a non-vegan. But that doesn't mean that we cannot do better by using animals for food, for example catching one's own fish or hunting a deer or buying from a local farmer who grazes his herd and does little supplemental feeding. That's why I think we have to take a rights-based approach which does at least offer a moral defence for causing the deaths of pest animals. And bear in mind the crop deaths argument depends on invertebrates to carry through because on the basis of larger animals, the numbers simply are not big enough to be significant when considered from a person fed per calories basis. Of course, no vegan critic really cares, they just want to go "Hah, told you so, you are all hypocrites"...