Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

[Red Baron Farms]

So instead of properly establishing your claims, you will continue this lecturing charade?

Fine by me, I am not the one trying to establish your claims.

No one has even questioned it but you. Probably because it is already public knowledge? I actually don't know of anyone (except you?) that doesn't know about the deterioration of fertility in our agricultural soils. Some might not know that a scientist Sir Albert Howard predicted it 60 years ago and declared it to be in part a side effect of our unethical abuse of animals in CAFOs, but they know it is happening.

One of the most powerful things about good science is its ability to make predictions. Now 60 years later we see that prediction coming true and I posted the hard evidence of that.

What you want is is not evidence, you want some kind of proof that there is another possible way to avoid loosing the fertility of our soils that doesn't include animal husbandry. Why? Because you are a vegan that wants livestock exterminated from the planet as vermin.

Sorry. That's you placing the guilt on the victim. You are just as unethical as the industrial factory farms. It is not the cow's fault it is being abused in the despicable CAFO business model and that model is also destructive to the environment and leads to loss of fertility in agricultural soils. There is nothing inherently evil about a cow. All the issues you blame on the cow are actually more properly placed on the factory farming business model, or more specifically the humans participating in that evil.

ETA: I said cow, but same applies to all domestic farm animals.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No one has even questioned it but you. Probably because it is already public knowledge? I actually don't know of anyone (except you?) that doesn't know about the deterioration of fertility in our agricultural soils. Some might not know that a scientist Sir Albert Howard predicted it 60 years ago and declared it to be in part a side effect of our unethical abuse of animals in CAFOs, but they know it is happening.

One of the most powerful things about good science is its ability to make predictions. Now 60 years later we see that prediction coming true and I posted the hard evidence of that.

What you want is is not evidence, you want some kind of proof that there is another possible way to avoid loosing the fertility of our soils that doesn't include animal husbandry. Why? Because you are a vegan that wants livestock exterminated from the planet as vermin.

Sorry. That's you placing the guilt on the victim. You are just as unethical as the industrial factory farms. It is not the cow's fault it is being abused in the despicable CAFO business model and that model is also destructive to the environment and leads to loss of fertility in agricultural soils. There is nothing inherently evil about a cow. All the issues you blame on the cow are actually more properly placed on the factory farming business model, or more specifically the humans participating in that evil.

ETA: I said cow, but same applies to all domestic farm animals.

I see many more claims about my position, which as myself I can tell you are incorrect.

You have taken one input, animal manure on soil nutrient cycles, and jumped to the conclusion that without animal agriculture catastrophe awaits. This positive claim is not established by that evidence.

And contrary to organic/holistic propaganda, the metabolic rift exists in all agricultural industry. The worst offender was the model farm in Pollan's book. Soil is a big environmental concern, and this is not a panacea.

All this said, committed advocates of alternative systems make one undeniably important point about the practice called “rotational grazing” or “holistic farming”: the soil absorbs the nutrients from the animals’ manure, allowing grass and other crops to grow without the addition of synthetic fertilizer. As Michael Pollan writes, “It is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients.” In other words, raising animals is not only sustainable, but required.

But rotational grazing works better in theory than in practice. Consider Joel Salatin, the guru of nutrient cycling, who employs chickens to enrich his cows’ grazing lands with nutrients. His plan appears to be impressively eco-correct, until we learn that he feeds his chickens with tens of thousands of pounds a year of imported corn and soy feed. This common practice is an economic necessity. Still, if a farmer isn’t growing his own feed, the nutrients going into the soil have been purloined from another, most likely industrial, farm, thereby undermining the benefits of nutrient cycling.

Finally, there is no avoiding the fact that the nutrient cycle is interrupted every time a farmer steps in and slaughters a perfectly healthy manure-generating animal, something that is done before animals live a quarter of their natural lives. When consumers break the nutrient cycle to eat animals, nutrients leave the system of rotationally grazed plots of land (though of course this happens with plant-based systems as well). They land in sewer systems and septic tanks (in the form of human waste) and in landfills and rendering plants (in the form of animal carcasses).

Linky.

Farming systems with animals can range from
low-input meat production, based entirely on grazing,
to 'industrial' animal production in what are often
referred to as CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding
operations) or ILOs (intensive livestock operations).
Between these two extremes are mixed crop and
livestock farms, which derive income from both these
sectors. In addition, a large number of farms are
completely arable; in fact, arable farming is currently
the largest agricultural land use in Europe (Eurostat
2000), as well as predominating in moisture-limited
regions of the mid-western USA and Canada, where
there is frequently insufficient water for livestock
production. Nutrient management related to these
farming systems is discussed in various papers included
in this Supplement, and only a brief summary will be
presented here.

The main difference between systems with and
without animals is undoubtedly the production of
manures. Several papers in this supplement emphasize
the potential problems associated with the use of organic
manures, such as increased emissions of nutrients to the
environment, especially N. Organic N in manures applied
to land continues to mineralize outside the cropping
season, leading to increased risk of N leaching. In
general, it is more difficult to predict nutrient availability
from organic sources than from inorganic sources,
because it involves biological processes that are highly
dependent upon temperature and moisture.

The general opinion is that intensifying animal production
increases the risk of environmental problems
(Sims et al. 2005). However, we have to recognize that
some techniques which improve nutrient-use efficiency
are only viable on larger units producing larger amounts
of manure. For example, anaerobic digestion of manures
transforms up to 50% of the total organic carbon in raw
manures into a valuable byproduct, namely biogas
(methane ~ 60-65%, carbon dioxide ~35%), leaving a
more highly mineralized, N-rich liquid fertilizer which can
be applied to crops, in the same way as commercial
fertilizers. Another example, which is also facilitated by
large quantities of manure, is the possible use of
ultra-microfiltration to recover the organically bound
nutrients in inorganic form (Cicek 2003), followed by
concentration (Kirchmann et al. 2005). The product of
this process could then be used as an inorganic fertilizer
and transported long distances to arable farms.

Linky.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Your first link written by James E. McWilliams is wrong. McWilliams is btw a Vegan and it is no doubt that his article calls to your dogmatic position.

My personal reaction has been to avoid animal products completely.

However, it doesn't make his position any more correct, nor yours. I could debunk his poorly written article, but why? He admits that what I propose is more humane.

These alternatives typically come from small organic farms, which practice more humane methods of production.

This thread is about animal cruelty. QED

Now if you really wish to fight over the falsehoods in his article, sure I can. His next few paragraphs are straight from the industrial meat industries' deception campaign.

For all the strengths of these alternatives, however, they’re ultimately a poor substitute for industrial production.

He is an advocate for the industrial meat industry!

Any Vegan who would stoop to becoming a industrial animal production advocate and willing to borrow their propaganda to defend raising animals in an inhumane way has some serious internal conflicts in his own argument. His hypocrisy is obvious. He is no advocate for ethical treatment of animals. He is an advocate for the inhumane torture of animals.

Oh but it gets better. After first pretending to be concerned about animal welfare, then proving actually he doesn't give a damn about the humane treatment of animals by advocating their torture, by the end of the article he throws yet another curve. Turns out he advocates the total elimination of all livestock species! I guess genocide is better than slavery and both are better than free range.

it’s not how we produce animal products that ultimately matters. It’s whether we produce them at all.

Maybe you learned your unethical position from him?

The second link is meaningless actually. Not sure why you even posted it. If anything he talks about worked, our soils wouldn't have deteriorated to the critically poor state they are in now. Just a rehash of a failed understanding that got us in this position to begin with, and yet again another advocate of the inhumane torture of animals.

only viable on larger units producing larger amounts
of manure.

The ironic thing is you found exactly the disrespectful, arrogant, manipulative attitude my first post was about. Congrats for making my arguments easier.

I would suggest that a culture that views its animals in that type of disrespectful, arrogant, manipulative standpoint will view its citizens the same way...and other cultures" Joel Salatin

 

[Dessi]

Now the ethical thing to do is to treat them as our farming partner, not abuse them in CAFOs in some insane massive animal abuse program. But the second you go past that and start to advocate removing entire species of domesticated farm animals from the planet, you turn an ethical agenda back into an evil agenda.

So I could support you in a call to end all animal abuse. I could especially support you in a call to end all CAFOs world wide due to them being the worst form of animal abuse. But the second you cross the line and start advocating a vegan agenda, you loose me.

I don't think "cows as farming partners" and "vegan" are mutually exclusive. For example, raising cows on pastures to collect their manure, providing veterinary care and comfort to the end of their natural lives. I know little about agricultural science, but I imagine there's probably a huge industry for manure in compost and fertilizers.

That seems reasonable and consistent with the view that we should avoid abusing cows.

 

[luchog]

The cats I care for wouldn't stand a chance out there in the wild, or out on the streets, where they'd likely be hit by a car, or killed by a larger animal. Livestock animals have no defenses either, and would be unable to fend for themselves if released into the wild.

That's not entirely true. In fact, many feral animal populations not only survive, but thrive.

I think we greatly underestimate the ability of animals to adapt, despite domestication. The majority of animals we consider domesticated are really only a handful of generations removed from their wild counterparts, extant or extinct; and will readily revert if given the chance (and in some cases, actively interbreed with related wild populations). In fact, in many places feral dogs and cats have reverted to a wild state; and when introduced in areas they previously have not existed, have wreaked havoc on native wildlife.

Other feral animals have had a similarly disastrous effect on local environments after being introduced, most notably Australia's feral rabbit population. Even cattle have gone feral and established stable populations in many areas.

An interesting note, all "wild" horses in North America are descended from feral horses introduced by the Spanish in the 16th and 17th centuries; not descended from previous North American populations of horses, which went extinct many centuries earlier.

One of the lakes where I live has a huge problem with feral goldfish, released into the lack by owners no longer interested in caring for them, which are slowly out-competing the indigenous fish, polluting and destroying the lake ecology. This is hardly unique to my local region; many other places have also experienced problems with feral goldfish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_cat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-ranging_dog#Stray_versus_feral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_pig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_horse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Feral_cattle

 

[Dessi]

Livestock animals have no defenses either, and would be unable to fend for themselves if released into the wild.

I'm not aware of any vegan who advocates releasing cows into the wild willy-nilly, without regard to their safety in the state of nature. Most vegans would rather see the animals raised in safe pastures to their natural end.

 

[Belz...]

Yet the reason I'm asking this question is because, for the life of me, I find myself unable to articulate an objective moral or philosophical argument as to why I as an individual, or why we as a society, should care about animal cruelty as an issue.

Of course. Thre are no objective moral arguments, so there.

We each have our own threshold for causing harm to animals. Some people see no problem with animal cruelty for fun, others don't accept medical testing, others yet think that you shouldn't kill animals at all, only plants, etc. There is no objective standard, only agreed to social standards.

 

[Meed]

And if you only eat those; you're looking at getting deficiency diseases real quick. As for animal products, see below.

Of course one should not eat only those foods. They are staples and they are far cheaper than animal product staples for the most part. That is my point. You still need some fruits and vegetables for your A and C vitamins and such (just like you would on an omnivorous diet).

You may be right about organ meats being very cheap also, that is something I would have to look into. Nonetheless my point remains, which is that a vegan diet in the US can be achieved at a very low cost.

True; but with a meat-based diet, it is not necessary to eat as many of these to gain all essential nutrients. Ounce for ounce, meat is higher in complete, bio-available protein than any vegetable source except soy; and higher in many bioavailable essential nutrients, such as iron.

Ounce for ounce meat generally has a higher concentration of protein, yes, but a gram of protein from beans is still considerably cheaper than a gram of protein from meat. Grains and legumes are also pretty high in iron.

Although many vegetables have these in reasonably high concentrations, their lower bioavailability makes it necessary to eat higher quantities more frequently to obtain sufficient amounts of them.

Honestly I don't know a ton about bioavailability in plants vs meats. I would like to learn more, though. Do you have any specific figures, like for example, iron absorption rate in black beans vs iron absorption rate in lean beef (or any example you like)?

Not true. Meat is remarkably cheap in many parts of the US; especially if you avoid the premium cuts. Organ meats in particular are extremely cheap. I can go to the supermarket and pick up a pound of chicken hearts or beef liver for considerably less than it costs me for a pound of peanut butter.

You may well be right that organ meats are very cheap. Rarely do I hear anything about them being eaten, so I imagine they are cheap due to low demand. To nitpick just a little, we should note that a pound of peanut butter contains considerably more energy (kcals) than a pound of beef or chicken hearts. It has more protein than a pound of chicken hearts, but slightly less protein than a pound of beef hearts.

Dairy products also tend to be very inexpensive; and cheese is an excellent way to supplement a diet poor in certain amino acids and vitamins.

I won't dispute this. I'm not going to claim an omnivorous diet can't be cheap. Still, legumes are cheaper than dairy and you can get all the essential amino acids from them.

It is for the vegan diet I was explicitly referring to. If it's not 100% animal free, then it's not vegan, by definition.

I don't think most vegans claim to be 100% animal product free. The way I understand the term, we avoid animal products to the extent that is reasonable and practically achievable (of course those who consider themselves vegan may disagree on the exact meaning of the term but these are just boring semantic disputes as far as I'm concerned).

If I were to accept the more strict usage of the term and someone were to say to me "I would go vegan, but it's too hard. I can't manage achieving the level of being 100% animal product free" I'd say "Okay, don't go vegan. Just give up all obvious animal products and don't stress the rest." My mindset is that any reduction in animal product consumption is a good thing.

There is a lot more effort that goes into even a vegetarian diet; let alone a vegan one. For starters, balancing amino acids is something that a lot of people simply don't think about; but which has to be done with a vegan diet. How many people know how to do that? No vegetable source has a completely balanced amino acid profile and concentration, except soy, and to a lesser extent, amaranth.

But most plants contain every essential amino acid. I don't know why people make these claim about "balancing amino acids" and "complete proteins" so often, unless there is some bioavailability issue I'm unaware of. Every time I've tracked my amino acid intake I've been fine, except maybe a little low on methionine once in awhile (but not super low). I was raised vegetarian and have survived without putting effort into protein balancing thus far with no major health problems that I'm aware of. I do eat soy once in awhile, but I've never treated it as a staple food.

 

[Belz...]

Umm... animal torturers are psychopaths.

Are they ? Could you expand on that ?

First of all, this isn't black and white.

...so are animal torturers psychopaths or not ?

As a matter of fact, thinking that there is no difference between torturing a virus and torturing a mammal is a definite sign of a psychopath.

Speaking of black-and-white thinking...

 

[Belz...]

Except for the ones who don't. Going on 9 years of veganism and I'm not dead yet. Cain and mumblethrax have been vegan longer than I have, and they seem very much not dead either.

If modern technology makes it easier for people to become vegan and minimize the harm they cause to others, that would be an argument for veganism, not against it.

What about the harm to plants ? Or do they not count ?

 

[Belz...]

It's possible to eat animals without causing needless suffering.

My stance in a nutshell.

 

[luchog]

I won't dispute this. I'm not going to claim an omnivorous diet can't be cheap. Still, legumes are cheaper than dairy and you can get all the essential amino acids from them.

I'll address the rest later; but I wanted to jump on this right now, since it is flagrantly wrong. You cannot get all essential amino acids from any legumes except soybeans. It is simply not possible. Without soy, it requires a blend of legumes and grains to get a full balance of amino acids. Amaranth seeds are the only other available source that is fully balanced, though the balance and concentration is not as good as soy. Soy also has to be processed in particular ways to maximize bioavailability (tofu is the most obvious example); but this is fairly trivial.

 

[Cain]

Now, they can't live without the basic necessities we provide, and this is true for both pets and livestock animals.

If only we possessed some grand, futuristic technology that could somehow prevent these animals from breeding...

But as mumblethrax observed, these threads follow an all too familiar pattern: a series of sloppy arguments until proponents of animal slaughter say: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." Members here made a stronger effort to show why they the "right" position in the discussion on street harassment.

 

[Belz...]

If only we possessed some grand, futuristic technology that could somehow prevent these animals from breeding...

But as mumblethrax observed, these threads follow an all too familiar pattern: a series of sloppy arguments until proponents of animal slaughter say: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." Members here made a stronger effort to show why they the "right" position in the discussion on street harassment.

Shouldn't an argument be made for changing the statu quo, instead ?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I don't think "cows as farming partners" and "vegan" are mutually exclusive. For example, raising cows on pastures to collect their manure, providing veterinary care and comfort to the end of their natural lives. I know little about agricultural science, but I imagine there's probably a huge industry for manure in compost and fertilizers.

That seems reasonable and consistent with the view that we should avoid abusing cows.

Agreed, they are not automatically mutually exclusive. Please don't confuse an ethical Vegan from an unethical Vegan. I was specifically arguing against an unethical Vegan who has repeatedly argued for the removal of all farm animals from the farm on the grounds that it is the cow itself that is to blame for its deleterious effect on the environment, the battery cage hen that is to blame for the diseases she spreads, that livestock doesn't even have the right to breathe or fart or defecate because everything they do is harmful to the environment, that the victim is to blame for the abuse it receives. It's now the cows fault? Or is it the fault of the human who put that cow in a CAFO? Raise it properly and a cow can be very beneficial to the environment[1][2], same as all livestock. Stack that same animal along with 100,000 more in a confined area, feeding them unnatural feeds they didn't evolve to eat, and forcing them to live in their own waste, and a whole host of health[3][4] and environmental issues[5] arise. But beyond that, it is animal cruelty! Isn't that exactly the topic of this thread?

Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

We should care because our cruelty to animals as a society comes right back and bites us in the butt on so many social, health and environmental levels! But there is no blaming the cow. It's our fault.

Actually I have a great fondness for 99.9 % of all vegetarians and vegans. I am a vegetable farmer after all. But the unethical vegan with those views I will rant against for sure.

 

[mumblethrax]

Shouldn't an argument be made for changing the statu quo, instead ?

What is the status quo, with respect to the topic at hand? Do the majority of people in your society, or do they not, believe that animals matter in their own right? My impression, backed by polling data, is that they do. This fight, at least, has already been won by animal advocates, at least in the US.

It's those who want to say that animals don't matter, except to the degree that pseudo-cruelty towards them might give us mind cancer, who are arguing against the status quo. They are the reactionaries of this debate, uncritically reproducing off-handed views held by the finest minds of the 18th century.

In any case, the arguments have been made, and skeptics ought to be better than most at setting aside the status quo bias and evaluating arguments on their merits. They aren't, but they ought to be.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What is the status quo, with respect to the topic at hand? Do the majority of people in your society, or do they not, believe that animals matter in their own right? My impression, backed by polling data, is that they do. This fight, at least, has already been won by animal advocates, at least in the US.

Oh really? You think so? We won? I think you probably need to read this:

CAFO: The tragedy of industrial animal factories.

 

[mumblethrax]

Oh really? You think so? We won? I think you probably need to read this:

Yes, I think with respect to the topic at hand--"Why should we care?"--we've already won. People understand why we should care. Because animals are capable of pain and suffering, have interests of their own which must be considered (not just the highly metaphorical interests of the species as a whole).

That's just the core question of the moral considerability of animals, however. When it comes to the 'applied ethics', there's still a lot of work to be done, naturally.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

When it comes to the 'applied ethics', there's still a lot of work to be done, naturally.

This will help quite a bit.

How it should be: Putting the CAFO out to pasture

 

[Frozenwolf150]

That's not entirely true. In fact, many feral animal populations not only survive, but thrive.

It's not ideal though. Life as a feral cat tends to be short and brutal. Their average lifespan is 4 years, as opposed to 12-15 years. They fall victim to wild predators, being hit by cars, and other cats. They have no protection against diseases because they are not immunized, and they are not sheltered from the elements. Feral cat populations are becoming a problem in many areas because they are breeding out of control and killing the birds. Yes, I know domesticated animals can technically readapt to survive in the wild, but is this really for the best? Is it good for them? Is it good for the environment? We made them what they are, so isn't it our responsibility to take care of them?

Ounce for ounce meat generally has a higher concentration of protein, yes, but a gram of protein from beans is still considerably cheaper than a gram of protein from meat. Grains and legumes are also pretty high in iron.

Again though, what do you do if you can't tolerate beans or legumes very well? Are there any alternatives?