The argument for beef produced by ranchers.
Some
vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be
used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It
is also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger
because livestock are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The
solution to world hunger, therefore, is for people to become
vegetarians. These arguments are illogical and simplistic.
The first argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth's dry
land is unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert
and mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals and that land
is currently being put to good use.
The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital
contributions that livestock animals make to humanity’s well-being. It
is also misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed
livestock could be diverted to feed humans:
Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the
welfare of human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer
and other products and services. They are a renewable resource, and
utilize another renewable resource, plants, to produce these products
and services. In addition, the manure produced by the animals helps
improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the plants. In some developing
countries the manure cannot be utilized as a fertilizer but is dried as a
source of fuel.
There are many who feel that because the world population is growing
at a faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less
able to afford animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is
an inefficient use of potential human food. It is true that it is more
efficient for humans to eat plant products directly rather than to allow
animals to convert them to human food. At best, animals only produce
one pound or less of human food for each three pounds of plants eaten.
However, this inefficiency only applies to those plants and plant
products that the human can utilize. The fact is that over two-thirds of
the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either
undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their
ability to convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not
only do not compete with the human rather they aid greatly in improving
both the quantity and the quality of the diets of human societies.
Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food
grown in the world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is
widespread poverty making it impossible for the starving poor to afford
it. In a comprehensive report, the Population Reference Bureau
attributed the world hunger problem to poverty, not meat-eating . It
also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be a solution for world
hunger.
What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were
abandoned in favor of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity
turning towards vegetarianism?
If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for
meat in the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain
would dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving]
people in Africa and Asia wouldn't change at all.
The result would be very predictable -- there would be a mass exodus
from farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could
feed 10 billion people, the total amount of grain grown in this
post-meat world would likely fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The
trend of farmers selling their land to developers and others would
accelerate quickly.
In other words, there would be less food available for the world to
eat. Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what
would happen if animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied
exclusively on plant foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil
and require the heavy use of artificial fertilizers, one ton of which
requires ten tons of crude oil to produce.
As far as the impact to our environment, a closer look reveals the
great damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic
dairy farmer and researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if
“veganic agricultural systems were to gain a foothold on the soil, then
agrochemical use, soil erosion, cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill
health would escalate.”
Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:
Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation
of the environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of
wheat in ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats
that remain sterile 5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the
soil and water sources, monoculture agriculture also produces
environmental damage by altering the delicate balance of natural
ecosystems. World rice production in 1993, for instance, caused 155
million cases of malaria by providing breeding grounds for mosquitoes in
the paddies. Human contact with ducks in the same rice paddies resulted
in 500 million cases of influenza during the same year.
There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods,
whether of plants or animals produce harm to the environment. With the
heavy use of agrochemicals, pesticides, artificial fertilizers,
hormones, steroids, and antibiotics common in modern agriculture, a
better way of integrating animal husbandry with agriculture needs to be
found. A possible solution might be a return to “mixed farming,”
described below.
The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring
about a return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits,
vegetables and grains is combined with the raising of livestock and fowl
in a manner that is efficient, economical and environmentally
friendly. For example, chickens running free in garden areas eat insect
pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep grazing in orchards
obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in woodlands and
other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands
economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation
that leads to hunger and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and
monopolistic distribution systems.
The "mixed farm" is also healthier for the soil, which will yield
more crops if managed according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey
has accurately pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield
up to five harvests a year, while a "mono-cropped" one will only yield
one or two (9). Which farm is producing more food for the world's
peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological horrors of “battery farming”
and points to future solutions by saying:
Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the
business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery
systems and beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages,
deplorable cruelty, anti-ozone slurry systems; drug/chemical induced
immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. and salmonella, rain forest
eradication, etc. Our future direction must strike the happy, healthy
medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old traditional extensive system
as a basic framework, then bolstering up productivity to present day
demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological
science into farming systems.
It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly
practiced, damages the environment. Nor does it appear that world
vegetarianism or exclusively relying on agriculture to supply the world
with food are feasible or ecologically wise ideas.
--by Stephen Byrne
No comments:
Post a Comment