Right. That’s it. No more eggs, free range or not.
I have two uses for eggs: meringues and to make burgers. (My burger recipe is beef mince – I might have to look into that, too, but one thing at a time – onion, bread crumbs, worcestershire sauce, eggs, herbs from the garden such as coriander and cumin, and chillis.) The eggs keep the mince and breadcrumbs together – what’s an ethical substitute, and where is a good place in eastern Melbourne to buy it?
I suspect I’m going to have to give up on meringues entirely, at least until we have our own hens – although even our own hens would be, necessarily, from a process that slaughters male chicks, wouldn’t they? Sigh.
Advertisement
Organ Australia make No Egg egg replacer (go down the page a bit):
http://www.gmagazine.com.au/reviews/360/orgran-no-egg
It’s not just male chicks that are unwanted, male calves on dairy farms are sent straight to the abbattoirs for veal. Many people don’t realise that dairy cows need to get pregnant once a year to continue producing milk. The cries of the mother and the calf on separating are something a city person never forgets.
I’ve been vegan now for four years and enjoy my food now more than ever. The secret is you learn to use herbs and spices properly.
Don’t be a wimp about eggs Jeremy, chooks are hardly the highest form of life.
You watched the video of the chirping little chicks being fed into a grinder, then?
Iain,
“Chickens are intelligent animals and good problem-solvers. More advanced than young children…”
http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/animals/chickens/
Plenty of other articles can be Googled with similar findings.
Given that they’d be killed anyway, what’s the problem?
It seems a humane means of dispatch to me.
Ok so its not a nice thing to think someone might do to your nana or an old school chum, but these are day old chicks.
Slightly higher on the natural food chain than a worm.
Would there be any such cry for a worm grinder?
Chooks aren’t only useful pets – best composters ever – but are funny as hell. Only this morning one of mine took off with a lump of cheese that was in the scrap bucket…with the others in hot pursuit of the treasure. Quite clever at managing to eat it while keeping the others away by spinning around the entire time.
“Would there be any such cry for a worm grinder?”
From me there would be. Poor little wormies.
Using animals for food production will lead to animals being killed. Hopefully this would be in a ‘humane’ manner, I think that is the best we as a species can do. Even domesticating or interacting with animals in the environment can lead to sadly negative outcomes for whatever critter. Think of deformed breeds of domestic dog and the like. Little Kittehs are not known for being vegetarian and when they are fed their ‘rape of the seas’ flavour fishy tinned stuff baby Jesus vomits in disgust. We do not live in a cutesy-Disney-style-everyone-is-happy-and-nothing-nasty-or-morally-ambigous-ever-happens universe. Personal morality does intersect with this. Feeding cute baby chicks into a grinder grates on most peoples nerves as the cause and effect is immediately apparent. But suffering of a more cruel nature such as gradual starving to death and being eaten alive is by far the most common form of death in the wild. Nature is red in tooth and claw, so get out there and start getting toothy and claw-y you vegetarian plant sadists.
I don’t know much about chickens, but I am guessing these chicks arent exactly self aware. While it is still pretty disgusting, I don’t think they would know much about it.
Dare I make the comparrison that this is not entirely unlike abortion? Sure, we dont feed foetuses through a grinder, but nevertheless they are terminated, and I imagine that newly hatched chicks are probably no more self aware than an unborn foetus.
Btw, I am generally pro choice.
And i might point out that the little chickies wiv da cute yewwow down are not the tasty ones.
In fact, yuck!!!!
Actually Keri I sort of agree with you.
As a student I did some reasonable reading on worms. They’re facinating really. Darwin is still the guru on them so that’s the amount of real research that’s been done on them in 150 years.
When it rains they all come out for a crawl on the surface.
The worms mortal enemy, like the left’s, is the light of day. They can’t be exposed to light for more than a few minutes and when it rains just before dawn they are in trouble and thousands of them die.
I hate that, so I gather them up in tins and bury them or chuck em in the compost.
So I do see your point there Keri.
The little yellow chick though is more akin to the maggot than the worm. Its sort of the lava stage of the chook only a maggot is slightly brighter than a chook. Bloody useless too,especially if they are male. I would have thought that a femo like you would have seen the universes even up on males as a good thing.
Its a purely emotional, “aren’t they cute” as opposed to “oh stinky maggots crush them” argument.
Nobody wants to save the ugly creatures.
“Sure, we dont feed foetuses through a grinder….”
No “waste” of that kind is incinerated.
Its not human.
We kill it and incinerate the remains.
Familiar eh?
Jeremy, most smaller scale free range egg producer’s (like most at the farmers markets in Melbourne) DO NOT grind up and dispose of male chicks. They are generally grown out until they start crowing, then they get the chop and become tasty freerange meatbirds.
It is industrial scale factory farms that operate in this way, (across ALL animal production systems)but if you make the effort you can source all your animal products from ethical producers.
So you can either..
Make the effort to source ethically farmed produce.
Harden the fuck up, as Iain has suggested, and stomp through life secure in the knowledge you are a higher form of life and unlikely to end up in a grinder.
Become a vegan and suffer the side effects. Poor health, homosexuality, pacifism and other Leftist tendancies
Its your choice…
(sorry Daphon, just funnin’)
NAJ, just out of interest, when do you say life starts? At the mere combining of DNA, no brain or heart required, or at a later stage?
For a chicken?
Don’t be obtuse. We both know what you were talking about. For a human.
I say it starts when we’re born.
We’ve looked into farmers markets and are going to start going, but I think we were a bit concerned that there’s no gauruntee that those markets ar any more ethical than large farmers.
Jeremy, why did you have to open pandoras box?
No I say once cell division is under way that is a sign of life.
Given it’s got human DNA, that is proof that its human.
I make no distinction between one human life and another notwithstanding responsibility for that human life’s actions.
If we have to wait till we’re born to be human then every mother is in love with………??????
It’s not just factory farming that’s the problem: where do you think the so-called ‘free range’ egg farmers get their stock from them? And what happens to the hens when they stop laying?
There is no such thing as cruelty-free animal farming.
Gee … you can even make your chickens work harder in their short lives!
“Artificial Lighting can keep your chickens laying as daylight hours fall.”
and
“Commercially, layers are given light to keep them productive for longer and to control their moult however these hens are only kept for 18 to 24 months or so before they are replaced.”
http://poultrykeeper.com/chickens/general-chickens/light-for-layers.html
Industrialised death is never pretty yet necessary. I suspect you would be just as disgusted by what goes on at most abattoirs yet most people eat meat.
The only true moral alternative is to go vegan or accept what happens . I say that as a definite meat eater!
Don’t worry Keri. Not something I want to debate here.
Head V Brick wall = ouch!
Bit of a worry that it’s birth that he’s drawn the line at, but I’m not having that debate in a thread on grinding chickens.
It demeens the debate and the chickens.
Even a vegan kills the food (s)he eats.
Terry,
All abattoirs should be in the middle of shopping malls and have glass walls.
Most people eat meat because they never stop to think about the origins of it – a plastic-wrapped package at Coles or Woollies is the limit of their thought processes (for politics too, I think).
I say that as definite vegan!
NAJ,
I wonder why pro-lifers don’t take their beliefs to the natural conclusion and become veg*ns and anti-death penalty campaigners?
“No I say once cell division is under way that is a sign of life.
Given it’s got human DNA, that is proof that its human.”
Righto. Well, we’ve got pretty much nothing to discuss on that issue then. You consider no difference between a collection of cells and a human being. You’d say that a woman immediately loses her autonomy to something barely discernable in a microscope.
Anyway, back to the topic of the post.
Jeremy:
By the stage of fertilisation a unique human exists with its own DNA which is distinct and different to that of either of its parents. Apparently anytime prior to birth, even if it is capable of surviving outside the womb it is perfectly reasonable to crush its skull, drag it out and incinerate it. Sadly some people think that baby seals and newly hatched chicks have deserve more protection than these humans.
“Jeremy, why did you have to open pandoras box?”
Because its fun! And surely SOMEONE’S got to open the damn thing?
You are right about not having any guarantee Keri, but the odds are far better.
Personally, i feel that it is better to buy from a small producer anyway, regardless of their production system, for the simple fact that the market atmosphere creates a sense of community not found in a shopping mall, and the profits go direct to the supplier, not to an agribuisness middleman.
By not supporting the middlemen and the supermarket chains and reducing their market share, we create more opportunituies for the little guy to get a start in buisness.
There are in my view two ways to change the way farming (or any other buisnerss) is done. Either deny unethical buisness’ your money, or if you are able, go out and do it better than them. Better yet is to do both!
Lets out capitalism the capitalists people!
SB – when do you say human DNA becomes a human individual?
“Most people eat meat because they never stop to think about the origins of it ”
No Daphon, most people eat meat because it tastes better than tofu and mushrooms.
I was talking about the time at which a living human exists. It is the combination of two cells that creates a distinct living entity. DNA on the other hand is a protein.
Come on, SB, where do you say the line is drawn? At what point between conceiving and giving birth does a woman, according to you, lose her autonomy and the new entity’s rights trump hers? When does “it” become “a human being”?
Daphon,
I agree that every meat eater should see an abattoir in action at least once. I have and are completely comfortable with continuing to be a meat eater.
Food production has to be Industrialised to meet demand (that includes fruit/veg). This leads to many awful but necessary things.
What really annoys me are people who try to justify themselves by using “small” producers. If every one did that then the small producers would no longer be small!
The using “local” and “small” producers is a such a elitist veiwpoint as it does not scale and thus becomes an option for a small group.
Industrialised Death and the Golden Rule
At least you can’t accuse Homo sapiens of being unwilling to practice industrialised death only on other species, we do have a strong track record on using industrial processes to kill people too. Everything from American civil war through to the Holocaust with enthusiastic contemporaries plying along as we sip our lattes. I think the point I am making here is, if we can treat fellow humans so appallingly, then we cannot expect us to treat non-humans any better. Or more like; the moral quagmire which allows us to abuse our fellow humans also allows us to abuse our world and the rest of it’s inhabitants. This is why the ‘green’ policies of the greens fit in to a broader ethical framework for social justice and ‘ecological justice’ (if such a bastard term exists). It’s a bit of a ‘chicken and egg’
conundrum that we can’t treat each other any better unless we can treat our world better.
Terry,
I don’t trust ‘farmer’s markets’ and such to any great extent.
Once a month my town has a local market, and then another weekend it’s another town in the area and so on. If you visit a few of these markets you’ll see the same stallholders. I think that many of them are professionals that just follow the local markets around.
Ok I’m going to bite on that Jeremy.
I never said I consider no difference between a collection of cells and a human being.
A collection of cells that is left to be that will develope into a human being (long before it is born) is profoundly different from a collection of cells that make up a heart or liver that will only ever constitute a heart or a liver.
And I wouln’t so much say say that a woman immediately loses her autonomy to something barely discernable in a microscope as say that a feotus loses its to something not discernable in one at all.
However as you said given your stated position on it I doubt we have anything serious to discuss. At least civilly.
We’ll have an abortion debate on another thread some time. But before anyone can play the rhetorical tricks – “collection of cells” vs “almost newborn baby” – everyone will have to declare where, at the outset, they’re saying the line should be drawn.
I don’t habe a problem with stallholders at markets being professionals, they have to make a living like everyone else. After all they are in the agriculture business
Its when people equate small/local with good/ethical.
After all does each buyer go an inspect the farming practices of every one they buy from?
There should be some sort of accreditation program.
“At what point ……………………………………the new entity’s rights trump hers?”
Any right is “trumped” when the only way that that right can be excercised is at the expense of a greater right to another.
I have the right to risk my life driving drunk, but when that right being excercised risks other life as well then my right is removed.
Our local council has called for expressions of interest for a local excess produce market (or named something similar). eg if you have fruit trees, vege gardens etc in your backyard, you can sell the excess at a council market.
Accreditation by whose standards though?
Another thread, NAJ. Another time.
That’s my concern, Terry. That even though it might be “fresh” and “local”, there’s no way of knowing how the animals are treated.
I don’t know. Apart from going vegan or just accepting that there are some horrendous practices out there.
Terry, some animal welfare organisation that rates producers according to openly-published standards and performs regular checks.
Which they pay for and thus becomes a commercial transaction
Also different welfare orgs have different standards. Should it be RSPCA or Animal Liberation or PETA?
Jeremy, this is a question of balancing rights. A women who will die if she proceeds with a pregnancy clearly should not be compelled to carry the child. This happens more often than you would expect.
At the other extreme you have the situation where some places allow abortion in cases where it is likely that a child could be born and survive. In some places even if a child survives an attempted abortion it is allowed to be killed anyway.
If the issue is where to draw the line for legal purposes, in terms of balancing the rights of the two parties, I would place limits in cases where a live birth could take place.
This debate more than results in zealotry and hard and fast positions on both sides. I don’t want to ignore the rights of the mother and I don’t want to ignore the rights of the human inside her. However, if the child is capable of surviving outside the womb it should generally be given that opportunity.
ANOTHER TIME. No more abortion discussion on this thread will be approved.
Terry – I’m suggesting a standards organisation that lives or dies on the community trusting its evaluations. It would have to be extremely transparent about:
(a) what its standards were; and
(b) how often it was going to inspect producers.
It would have to be set up to be completely independent of all producers – no-one with any conflict would be permitted on the board.
The only thing it would have of value is consumers’ trust in it – which it would earn by being publicly open and responsive to criticism, particularly from animal welfare groups.
It would need to commit to publishing concerns and criticisms and addressing them properly on its website so anyone could go and check and have faith that everything was as they said it was.
And producers with such accreditation could charge a premium for it, and ethical shoppers would pay it.
Sorry Jeremy. I didn’t see your warning before I posted the comment.
“And producers with such accreditation could charge a premium for it, and ethical shoppers would pay it.”
Well at least ethical shoppers who could afford to pay for it would — bad luck for those on lower incomes though, I guess they’ll just have to take pot luck.
At any rate, isn’t there already a code of some sort on all meat and animal product producers, by which they have to adhere to standards that are laid down by the RSPCA ?
“consumers’ trust”
Very important! I lost mine with the National Heart Foundation when they gave a red tick to eggs and some McDonalds products.
Gavin – a premium on ethical eggs and meat would still be affordable by anyone who was prepared to sacrifice something else.
And the RSPCA code is (a) weak and (b) not properly enforced. Pace farms have links with the RSPCA board, for example. Animal liberation groups regularly expose RSPCA-approved farming practices.
Although a life member of the RSPCA, I don’t have much faith in them when it comes to farm animals, Gavin.
http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/rspca-slammed-for-backing-egg-farms/57433.aspx
Nice piccie on that page.
“a premium on ethical eggs and meat would still be affordable by anyone who was prepared to sacrifice something else”
That sounds a bit elitist to me
You get to feel good about yourself if you can afford it!
As for RSPCA I suspect they are trying to approach the problem from a pragmatic position where as Animal Liberation groups have a idealist approach.
Terry
I work in conventional agriculture and also run a small intensive farm. My wife is also a manager at a conventionally run dairy farm, so i have a fair perspective on both small scale intensive agriculture and industrial scale factory farming.
My experience is that per acre, smaller producers are able to be more efficient. They just don’t have access to supermarkets and distribution chains.
When you are dealing with a smaller farm you can micromanage your animals reproductive health, increasing your birth rate/survival rate.
Smaller, more intensive farms allow micromanagement of animal and soil nutrient requirements, better ability to fence to soil type, exposure and drainage, and better managment of pasture and conserved fodder. Basically, you get less wasteage and higher margins.
There are inefficiencies of scale which larger farms have to deal with, which smaller producers do not.
In recent years many conventional piggeries were losing money on each pig produced due to high grain prices, and also the supermarket monopoly that keeps pork prices unrealistically low.
Many dairy farms in my area are in the process of collapsing under the weight of innefficincy, overwhelming debt and ridiculously low milk prices. The smaller guys are generally faring a bit better, and new milk co-ops are spinging up all over.
“What really annoys me are people who try to justify themselves by using “small” producers. If every one did that then the small producers would no longer be small!”
Not nessicarily true, there may just be more small producers filling the demand.
Im suspicious of anyone who doen’t like the idea of smaller producers being able to gain exposure and have a venue to sell their produce, and who mocks the idea of communities feeding themselves.
Any vested interests you’d like to declare?
In the late 60s I often had to go to the now-gone RSPCA Animal ‘Shelter’ in Sydney’s Moore Park because of my job.
There I witnessed some of the worst animal cruelty I’ve ever seen. (And now thinking about again means the Merlot (vegan, of course) might come out earlier today than usual).
BTW, im talking small farms, not hobby farms.
BIG difference!
“Gavin – a premium on ethical eggs and meat would still be affordable by anyone who was prepared to sacrifice something else.”
True, but we still get back to the problem of who decides what is and isn’t ethical, I wonder too, what other things people should sacrifice to be able to afford these premium priced goods.
As to the RSPCA, as Terry points out they have to make decisions based on the demands of the real world unlike organisations like PETA, for example, who can spruik their ideology without ever having to deal with the consequences that would follow if their ideas were actually implemented.
Terry I agree.
What are these tree huggers asking us to sacrifice?
School for the kids, private health insurance, vacations away, what????
Its all well and good to feel better about how the animals we eat were treated before we killed them, drained them of their blood, flensed them of their skins, disembowled them and butchered their corpses into bite sized bits. However when it means that the poor and the battlers have to pay extra to have food that gives them the most basic of nutritional advantages, then it is an elitist con to make middle the class feel better.
Duncan
Nope, no vested interests. I’m just try to look at the issues from a purely rational point of view.
I have no problem with small producers being in the marketplace selling their goods.
My point is that the model does not scale to meet the total demand in the marketplace.
I don’t think I am mocking communities feeding themselves. I’m constantly annoyed how people use small/local as some magical talisman that absolves them of ethical issues.
I’m also not sure how many communities completely feed themselves. We all live in a system of inter connected communities, no one exists in isolation.
The key quote from the linked RSCPA story (Page 2):
Ms Neil said the demand for eggs in Australia was about 200 million dozen eggs a year.
“Such a demand necessitates large-scale commercial production,” she said.
“The RSPCA would prefer to be in there helping to improve the welfare of birds in commercial egg production rather than not being involved at all.”
She said all the money received from the sale of the eggs – believed to be hundreds of thousands of dollars – was channelled back into the accreditation scheme.
I’m not saying RSCPA is right or wrong in the case but I don’t think its a simple issue
I understand what you’re saying, Terry, but I think I support the lone commenter:
“The RSPCA are an hypocritical organisation where farm animals are concerned.
Making public statements about wanting to stop cruel practises on the one hand but supporting and benefitting financially from those same cruel practises on the other hand.”
So what would you rather they do?
Not benefit financially or not make the statements?
I’m not being snarking, genuinely interested.
“Making public statements about wanting to stop cruel practises on the one hand but supporting and benefitting financially from those same cruel practises on the other hand.”
Without the involvement of the RSPCA I suspect those practices would be considerably crueller than they are at present, unfortuneately all the RSPCA can do is try to mitigate the circumstances of animals, bearing in mind the market demands, as best they can with limited resources, I’d say its more than reasonable for them to receive financial benefits from the industry.
Terry,
My belief is simple: you either have principles or you don’t.
“Not benefit financially”
and that’s the whole problem with society today: everything comes down to the dollar. The RSPCA has existed up to now without these sort of deals (as has Animal Liberation etc.).
If the RSPCA became more activist – in the courts and elsewhere (they do have some legal powers), they would be flooded with new members which equals money.
Terry – I’d rather they did what I suggest, so that the RSPCA logo on food was meaningful. In the meantime they’re just helping commercial egg farms trick people with consciences.
NAJ – something. For most of us there’s something we could choose instead. In fact, it should be so for everyone – welfare should be at a level where there’s some ability to make those choices.
It’s a matter of perception, Gavin.
I believe the CSIRO lost a lot of respect with their Total Wellbeing Diet book which advocates a high meat and dairy intake diet as a way to lose weight. The book has attracted controversy, as it is based on research funded by Meat and Livestock Australia and by Dairy Australia, lobby groups for the meat and dairy industries.
Jeremy – But I would contend that the RSPCA is meaningful. Its meaning is derived from RSPCA standards. Now people may agree or disagree with RSPCA standards but thats different from saying the RSPCA logo is not meaningful
The real problem (I think) is that different people project different meanings onto the RSCPA logo.
I don’t think RSPCA is “tricking” consumers but rather the logo allows consumers to trick/self delude/justify themselves. This will happen no matter what level of standards RSPCA hand themselves up to.
In the meantime RSPCA try to take a pragmatic approach to minimising cruelty
Maybe they really need to change to RSMCA
Alternatively I could see different orgs have different accreditation logos on products which represent their particular viewpoint. You could have RSCPA eggs, ALF eggs, PETA eggs (that would be an empty carton),etc But hopefully we can all see where that would lead.
“PETA eggs (that would be an empty carton)”
Perfect!
Daphon,
So you do think RSCPA should not accredit farms and thus put logos on products?
No, if it involves a financial transaction.
Terry, you said you think that people advocating for small producers are coming at things from an “elitist viewpoint” and are trying to “justify themselves”
You say that small farms don’t scale up, and can’t provide the food requirements.
You also say “I’m constantly annoyed how people use small/local as some magical talisman that absolves them of ethical issues.”
Who is doing this here? Im certainly not.
My reasons for believing in smaller intensive farms were..
Smaller farms are more efficient.
Lower transport and storage costs.
Injection of money into local economy, and creation of opportunity for new buisnesses to thrive.
Interaction with the producer, thus a better idea of how what you are buying was produced. I agreed with kerri that farmers markets are no guarantee of ethical production.
Wheres the elitism and justification for an unviable industry in what i have said?
We pay far too little for our food and most of us keep ourselves wilfully ignorant of how it is produced. Industrial-scale agriculture, though it produces cheap food for a while, is the most destructive force on the planet. It has been estimated that grain farmers in Australia lose AT LEAST a tonne of topsoil for every tonne of grain they produce, and it is usually a great deal more than that.
There are small-scale systems that produce far more food per hectare than any of the industrial systems, but they require an entirely different philosophical approach and are actively discouraged by governments, blinkered agricultural scientists, and vested interests.
Brutal treatment of animals is only one part of the problem. It is one symptom of a brutal attitude to nature which believes it is OK to flog it to death to satisfy human needs, then move on to another place to do it again. Slash and burn might have worked OK in some places when there were only a billion or so humans on the planet, but it won’t work for much longer.
Daphon,
Fair enough, thats a reasonable view about RSPCA’s role.
But who else can accredit farms without any financial transaction involved? That would seem to leave it to government?
Well put BadBob.
The various animal welfare organisations could set it up and fund it from donations. I’d donate.
Terry,
This recent article has some interesting things about the RSPCA/government that I didn’t know:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/neglect-buries-the-rspca/story-e6freuy9-1225761146260
Although I did know the RSPCA was a quasi-legal body via it’s inspectors.
BadBob,
“We pay far too little for our food ..”
Perhaps you could try telling that to those who are dependent on charity organisations to help feed their families.
Jeremy,
“The various animal welfare organisations could set it up and fund it from donations. I’d donate.”
You may donate, but I seriously doubt that enough people would, that’s why the RSPCA needs to involve itself in financial transactions — donations alone are insufficient to cover its costs.
Jeremy – Aren’t you then casting the animal welfare orgs into the same role as RSCPA?
Do you think that the different animal welfare groups could actually reach agreement? Would it include groups like PETA?
The moment it started you would have groups that say the standards are too low and then you are back where you started.
Not saying its not a great thing to wish for but not sure how practical it is
Daphon – Yes I do know a bit of RSPCA’s make up. The whole thing is a twisted mess with differing (and sometimes conflicting) goals
Its sort of linked to my previous comment about what people read into the RSPCA logo. It means very different things to different people.
It’s just another one of life’s cruel conundrums. We’re all a bunch of hypocrites when it comes down to it I put milk in my tea. But I don’t think I’d have the heart to kill the poor little male calf which is born to keep the cows producing.
“Perhaps you could try telling that to those who are dependent on charity organisations to help feed their families.”
Equally Gav, tell a farmer who gets paid less for each litre of milk than what it cost him to produce it that people are paying enough for their food.
“Industrial-scale agriculture, ……………. is the most destructive force on the planet. ”
Wow! Feeding the people is THE MOST destructive force on the planet.
More than racism, sexism, war, famine (which would be worse except for industrial scale ag).
Big call Bob.
Duncan
My point is that small producer are all well and good for the marketplace they serve, but that marketplace has a higher cost than larger scale enterprises
They can not scale to produce the amount of food required in the market place at the same cost.
Expecting everyone to absorb the rise of food prices by going with out other things is fine if you are well off. But if you are just getting by then it is not. Thus it is an elitist point of view
Gavin, I work professionally with “those who are dependent on charity organisations to help feed their families” and I often have this conversation with them. Those who have some appreciation of the environmental costs of industrial farming agree enthusiastically.
The simple fact is that, environmentally speaking, we are living beyond our means. Questions of social equity do not enter decisively into this argument. Of course they need to be considered, but they are secondary to the environmental imperative. It doesn’t help the poor to degrade the environment.
Duncan,
“Equally Gav, tell a farmer who gets paid less for each litre of milk than what it cost him to produce it that people are paying enough for their food.”
So do we just raise the cost of food and let the poor starve to death ?
I don’t think too many farmers are going to the wall because it costs them more to produce food than it sells for, most of todays farmers have updated their work practices so as to get maximum value for their effort.
“The simple fact is that, environmentally speaking, we are living beyond our means. Questions of social equity do not enter decisively into this argument. Of course they need to be considered, but they are secondary to the environmental imperative. It doesn’t help the poor to degrade the environment.”
It doesn’t help them much to be left to starve either.
Who else should we sacrifice for the “environmental imperative”, I believe a fair few resources go into making wheelchairs and prosthetics, so perhaps we could euthanise cripples as well.
You do sometimes get the wrong end of the stick, don’t you Gavin? What I am saying here, to repeat what I wrote in my original post, is that it doesn’t help anyone, not the poor, not the rich, not the cripples as you so charmingly call them, to abuse the environment in such a way as to make it less productive for future generations.
There are farming systems that enhance the fertility of the soil and increase the productivity of the land over time, but industrial farming is doing the exact opposite.
I agree with you that we don’t want people left to starve . If you read my post carefully and think through the issues raised by it, you will see that that is exactly what I am trying to avoid. An exhausted earth will not yield food.
Maybe BadBob’s point is that like all organisms, humans increase their population up to the level of food available to sustain them. If you decrease the supply of food, or make food more expensive, the overpopulation problem will solve itself.
OK Bob, I’ll admit I was only rattling your chain with that last post.
You’re right of course about certain farming practices being unsustainable, the question is, how do we establish sustainable practices that are capable of supplying not only our own, but also the world’s demand for food at an affordable price ?
Small scale systems are fine for local needs, but they aren’t going to produce enough to feed the export industry, which is why we unfortuneately have battery chicken farms, free-range just cannot produce the necessary volumes of product.
Have a look at Permaculture systems and biodynamics Gavin. They’re not the whole answer, but I’m sure they’re part of it.
The basic ideas are about designing systems to make maximum productive use of the land as well as enhancing its fertility and capacity to yield useful crops, while at the same time building more congenial human communities.
http://www.holmgren.com.au/ and http://www.biodynamics.net.au/ are good places to start.
Try to get past the cheap stereotyping of them as hippy idealism, and I’m sure you’ll find some interesting ideas there. Sure there’s a bit of weirdo shit here and there, but I’d rather put up with a bit of that than have to cope with the devastation caused by the brutalising, destructive systems curently in use.
Biodynamics?
Are you serious?
Really?
Putting herbs into cows horns and burying in the ground for year the sounds reasonable, for example
503: Chamomile blossoms (Matricaria recutita) are stuffed into small intestines from cattle buried in humus-rich earth in the autumn and retrieved in the spring.
As well as using astronomical planting calendar?
Should we chant as well?
Thats way past hippie idealism, thats way way into crazy woo land. No stereotyping needed.
There are good alternative farming practices sure, but to mention biodynamics really doesn’t cast them in a good light.
If we’re no supposed to eat animals then why are they made of meat?
Same reason we are?
Improved methods of growing crops is fine and dandy, but not everyone in the world wants to go vegetarian, nor do they necessarily want to give up dairy products or eggs, therefore there’s always going to have to be industrialised farming.
I don’t think there’s any argument that humans are meant to eat meat — if we weren’t our digestive system wouldn’t be able to cope with it.
Then there was…the Irish poultry farmer who went broke giving away free range eggs!
“I don’t think there’s any argument that humans are meant to eat meat ”
I was wondering when that old chesnut was going to come out. Obviously we’ve evolved to eat meat, but today we don’t need to eat meat. It’s possible to live a perfectly healthy life without consuming any meat at all – indeed, there’s evidence that the average vegetarian is healthier than the average meat eater (though correlation does not equal causation). One of the single simplest things we can do to help the environment is to eliminate meat from our diets.
Speaking as someone who was virtually a carnivore for 18 years and then became vegetarian – it’s not nearly as hard as you think it will be. You don’t miss meat the way you think you will, getting all the necessary vitamins is really not that hard and you still get to eat delicious food (I actually enjoy food more than I used to). Oh, and it saves a significant amount of money too
Can any vegetarian explain why they are not vegans?
Surely thats the more logical path to take?
Surely vegetarian are eating things that they don’t need to? Just like meat eaters
Biodynamics?
Sorry badbob, your on your own with this one. You raised some good points, but thats not one of ‘em!
Having studied soil chemistry i just can’t take biodynamics seriously. Its a sort of agricultural “perpetual motion” machine, but you can’t get something for nothing.
“I don’t think too many farmers are going to the wall because it costs them more to produce food than it sells for”
What are you basing that on Gav?
I work in agriculture, and mainly socialise with farmers and farmworkers. My wife manages an 1100 cow dairy farm, so im reasonably up to speed on whats happening.
A couple of stories from today…
“Philip Beattie from the Milk Producers Group says that is 10 cents less than the cost of production and many farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/04/2676266.htm
“ABARE estimates the average farm business profit for dairy farmers will fall from $74,100 for 2007-08, to a loss of $6000 this financial year”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25608088-5013169,00.html
Yes, I agree with you on your last post, Terry. A lot of vegetarians do progress to veganism, but even if they don’t they are still making significant differences to the welfare of animals and the environment. And, more than likely, to their health.
Four years I thought I would never be able to stop eating cheese, in all its varieties, which was my favourite food. Now I wonder at the naivety of that.
And today there is a vast number of products that make the switch easier – mock meats, soy cheeses and yoghurt etc. You’d be amazed at how many ordinary products on the market are already vegan.
Daphon,
I do take exception to the “better for your health” line of argument though, I know of no studies that prove a causal relation.
How many vegans own cats I wonder?
Plus some of the sickliest looking people I know are vegans
As for cheese, why “naivety”?
Nothing can replace a good “non vegan” red , a creamy brie and crusty bread. In fact I think I will have some now!
Don’t get me started on mock meats. What is the flipping point? Aren’t you just pretending? The psychology is very interesting
Be vegan fine, but why eat “not-bacon”? You are eating something pretending to be something that you don’t want to eat?
You would never pick the difference between a red refined with egg white and/or fish bladders from any other: it’s simply a difference in manufacturing.
Naivety referred to me in that I didn’t think I could live without cheese. I was so wrong.
Mock meats such as ‘not-bacon’ are helpful in the transition process. As matter of fact, once friends and relos have eating Sanitarium Hot Dogs that all they buy now because they worry about what goes into the meat (offal?) ones.
Anyway, I can’t see anything wrong with alternate non-meat and non-dairy products.
Anyway I’m finished with this topic. All the best for the weekend.
The point about red wine is choice. Restricted yourself to “vegan” wine means losing out on alot of incredible wines.
Never understood the offal hate though, if you are going to be a meat eater then you shouldn’t restrict which bits you eat. Sweetmeats, brains ,livers bring it on I say!
I’m with BadBob. Like it or not, biodynamics works.
How’s that SiddhaJacky? Do you practice biodynamics yourself?
Growing any crop removes nutrient and organic matter from the soil.
The nutrients removed are not replaced in biodynamics. It may appear to work for a few years on good soil, but it can’t work long term without depleting the soil.
Biodynamics is contrary to every natural and physical law, as i understand them.
Although i will cede that it is possible the biodynamic compounds act as soil conditioners, improve soil structure and they may encourage soil biota, but they are not fertilizers.
Agriculture (organic or conventional) is a science, not a religion.
Terry i agree. Offal can be wonderful, although i draw the line at brains and tripe. The dog can have them!
Inter species bigotry.
Happily eating one type of animal but not another type.
I’d have thought it depended on how they were treated. Some animals are farmed more brutally than others.
Or even same species farmed differently, for example pasture fed beef vs. feedlot beef.
21st century and were till eating meat?
Slavery is gone, women have the vote and we are on the cusp of gay marriage being seen equal in law, but we still allow the slaughter of millions of animals.
Why are my troll senses tingling?
It actually might be your conscience.
Or maybe not.
Pingback: I think I understand how quitting smokers feel « An Onymous Lefty
“Free-range egg claims don’t add up
ONE in six free-range eggs is not what it seems.
An analysis of egg industry data has confirmed what most consumers have suspected: it is doubtful enough free-range layer hens in the country exist to produce the number of eggs labelled free-range.”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/freerange-egg-claims-dont-add-up-20090905-fc4b.html
“Can any vegetarian explain why they are not vegans?”
Yep: because it’s too hard. There’s no ethical justification for it (if that’s what you’re asking) – a vegetarian is simply a failed vegan. And I say that as an ovo-lacto vegetarian.
While my vegetarianism removes the worst excesses of environmental degradation and animal cruelty, to be truly in tune with my values I would need to become vegan. It’s considerably more difficult than being vegetarian, however, and I haven’t quite worked up the courage to do so.
Tim, mate, veganism does get easier. Once you get some experience with spices, herbs, subsitutes etc you’ll wonder why you hesitated.
This has been one of my favourite vegan recipe sites for a long, long time:
http://vegandad.blogspot.com/
And, Tim, you might be interested in the 30 Day Easy Vegan Challenge:
http://www.vegsoc.org.au/forum_messages.asp?Thread_ID=10108&Topic_ID=1
And this too from Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine:
21 Day Vegan Kickstart Program
http://support.pcrm.org/site/PageServer?pagename=21day_vegan_kickstart&autologin=true
Cheers mate – I’ll check it out.