First of all, this is my first post, so, hi.

Secondly: I was wondering if anyone here could help me to verify or refute the claims made in a paper I read regarding the efficiency of veganism in terms of food production.

(Apparently I'm not supposed to post links here until I hit ten posts, but paper is entitled "the naive vegetarian", and if you google for that phrase, in quotes, it's the very first thing to come up.)

Under the section marked "animal farming is an efficient use of land", the author suggests, among other things, that neither the UK nor the United States would have enough food to feed it's own citizens if all of them went vegan. He argues that this is the case because much more land of earth is suitable for raising livestock than is suitable for growing crops. My interest in veganism is based on the belief that if widely embraced, it could potentially reduce world hunger, so the question is of interest to me.

Naturally, I realize that the modern commercial meat industry is wasteful, using up land, water, and energy raising and transporting grain to feed cattle that could have been fed to people in the first place. But if the author of the above site is correct, I could see how it might imply eating free-range and organic meats from local sources was actually more ethical defensible than being a vegan, at least from an ecological point of view.

I'd be very interested if anyone had an opinion on this, or could point me to a source of information.

He argues that this is the case because much more land of earth is suitable for raising livestock than is suitable for growing crops.

Thats a very ironic statement to make considering that animals raised for livestock eat an abundance of crops that need land to grow on. How about we just grow the food for ourselves rather than growing it to feed to an animal then eat the animal? Sounds utterly wasteful to me. I'm not sure how having livestock and livestock crops takes up less room and resources than just having the crops.



Naturally, I realize that the modern commercial meat industry is wasteful, using up land, water, and energy raising and transporting grain to feed cattle that could have been fed to people in the first place. But if the author of the above site is correct, I could see how it might imply eating free-range and organic meats from local sources was actually more ethical defensible than being a vegan, at least from an ecological point of view.

I don't understand. How is having a farm that has animals wandering slightly rather then squashed into pens more ecologically ethical than supporting your local organic vegetable or grain farmer? The wandering animals still eat, sleep, drink, and poop just like the factory farmed ones.

Thats a very ironic statement to make considering that animals raised for livestock eat an abundance of crops that need land to grow on. How about we just grow the food for ourselves rather than growing it to feed to an animal then eat the animal? Sounds utterly wasteful to me. I'm not sure how having livestock and livestock crops takes up less room and resources than just having the crops..


Sorry if I was unclear. The argument in this article I was reading -- which I'm not sure what I think of, yet -- is that there are large amounts of land unsutiable for growing, for example, grain, but suitable for pasturing animals because they can support grass. As an example, he suggests:

The UK's major livestock production is sheep, which are reared in almost every part of the kingdom. If we all became vegetarians, the mountains of Wales and Scotland would become largely unproductive, as would the moorlands of central and northern England.

He has similar thoughts about the ramifications of a world that eschewed eating fish, since obviously underwater land masses aren't good for a whole lot of things, agriculturally speaking.

I don't understand. How is having a farm that has animals wandering slightly rather then squashed into pens more ecologically ethical than supporting your local organic vegetable or grain farmer? The wandering animals still eat, sleep, drink, and poop just like the factory farmed ones.

I suppose my point here is that the arguements raised in this author's paper hold up, then it might be possible to argue that boycotting major meat producers and supporting ones that operate more sustainably, might be the more logical ethical desicion than giving up meat altogether. The pens are not the issue; the issue is that wastefully raising and harvesting grain and shipping it halfway around the world as feed is not a problem intristic to meat eating -- in theory, small amounts of livestock raised in appropriate enviroments could exist on foods that more closely resembled their natural diets and pose far less of an ecological threat -- ie, cows eating grass.

My point is that if a totally vegan world population is unviable, as this author suggests, pushing for reform of the meat industy by encouraging small, local producers would probably make more sense than going vegan, ethically, looking at it only from the ecological point of view. That's only IF this author is correct.

Which brings me back to the original question, which if there's a grain of truth to this or not... that I don't know.

Just a simple response here, but take all that land that crops are grown on to feed the animals. Now since billions of animals are slaughtered each year for consumption, I am guessing that that is a lot of land for crops. Take that land and use it for crops for humans. Take the land that has been used for animals and use the useable parts for more crops. My guess is that is more than enough to feed humankind and more so. I mean, it takes seven pounds of grain to raise (gah) one pound of pork. See that disparity?

Now without all those animals, we don't have so much methane being released into our atmosphere (a contribution to global warming). Soil erosion and depletion would decrease, as would deforestation and habitat destruction. We'd still have to make environmentally sound choices; veganism is not a panacea in and of itself--but it is a good step forward.

We wouldn't have a world/culture based on the mass murder of life. A sound respect for life, a desire to reduce suffering would benefit all humankind. We would see a drastic reduction in disease as people turned to vegetable sources for nutrition.

An article that says it better is here (http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/imagining.html). I am not Jewish, but the article is relevant to us all.

The problem is simply money. You have an entire industry built upon growing crops for animals, and though that industry would be sustained changing the crops for human consumption rather than animal consumption, you have an entire industry built upon raising billions of animals for slaughter/use for meat, for leather, for gelatin, for casein, for products like facial creams, duvets, pillows, tires, etc., etc. As a vegan, you must know how prevalent animal products are in our world. Instead of caring about what is really good for the world, instead of caring about people's health, the environment, the life of the animals, those who make millions in the industry see it as their lifeblood to convince the masses that eating meat is not only good for you, but it is normal. But many of us realised on our own that it is not. Many of us didn't even need to see videos showing the abuse animals undergo in the industry; we just knew deep in our hearts that it was wrong. I don't need to see that eating hamburgers is going to clog my arteries and kill me; I don't need to see chickens being scalded alive; I don't need to hear about fish pustules being filled with worms; I just know in my heart of hearts it is wrong and NOT normal.

Addendum: Animal products are so prevalent in our society because they are so cheap in comparison to other alternatives, not because they are necessary. Why are they so cheap? Because of the mass slaughter of animal life that ends up in a bag at McDonald's; all that meat comes with hooves, hearts, brains, eyes, hides, teeth (you know, an animal, a living being). Byproducts. Gah. If we just stopped mass murdering animals and using them as though they were stalks of corn (and not even! I have more respect for the corn I eat than most people have respect for the cow they are stuffing down their throats in the form of a Big Mac), then our resources, our labour could go towards the alternatives, and once they are established as the norm, the prices equalize. As it is now, we are often made to pay more for vegan alternatives than meat alternatives. ****, you can buy a stack of meat patties at the store for a couple of bucks, but a couple of veggie burgers can run six bucks.

Kimberly, I appreciate your thoughtful response. The original question still stands though. The article in question suggests that the "take all that land that crops are grown on to feed the animals and use it to feed humans" argument is a flawed argument because not all land suitable for raising crops to feed livestock (such as grass) are suitable for raising crops to feed humans (wheat, rice, corn, etc). I'm just wondering about this specific argument. I've heard it elsewhere, too, but this article goes as far as to suggest that there's so much land that's unusable for serious agriculture, that if everyone in the world were a vegan, world hunger would be worse and not better.

Disclaimers:

1) I'm not saying I agree with this guy, I'm just wondering if the argument holds up;
2) I understand that the modern meat industry is an ecological nightmare; the only question here is whether supporting small, local farmers of grazing animals is any more or less ecologically sound than not consuming animal products at all, presupposing that it is possible to raise livestock WITHOUT growing crops especially for one's livestock, if you do so on a small enough scale in something close to your livestock's natural enivornment.
3) The article is called "The Naive Vegetarian" by Barry Groves. I can't post links yet, but it's easy to find if you google for the title. The section I'm concerned with is the second one, titled "Animal Farming is an Efficient Use of Land" -- his words, not mine!

Bailey, in addition to the [I think] excellent responses above, I think if you use the search function you will find many other threads and posts related to this issue [which was one of my biggest questions when I first came to VeggieBoards as well]. They may not be responses to this article in particular [since this argument is made in other articles and pieces] but they do explore this issue in depth...maybe try "land use" "water use" "livestock feed" and so on.

ETA: Oh, and welcome!

Kimberly, I appreciate your thoughtful response. The original question still stands though. The article in question suggests that the "take all that land that crops are grown on to feed the animals and use it to feed humans" argument is a flawed argument because not all land suitable for raising crops to feed livestock (such as grass) are suitable for raising crops to feed humans (wheat, rice, corn, etc). I'm just wondering about this specific argument. I've heard it elsewhere, too, but this article goes as far as to suggest that there's so much land that's unusable for serious agriculture, that if everyone in the world were a vegan, world hunger would be worse and not better.


I understand, and I am arguing that all the crop land that is used to grow crops to feed the animals would be enough in and of itself to feed humans. The additional land that would be gained by not having animals grazing everywhere, even if it would only be a small percentage that could actually be farmed, would just be icing on the cake, so to speak.

I understand, and I am arguing that all the crop land that is used to grow crops to feed the animals would be enough in and of itself to feed humans. The additional land that would be gained by not having animals grazing everywhere, even if it would only be a small percentage that could actually be farmed, would just be icing on the cake, so to speak.

Not to mention the colossal water use to dispose of livestock waste and hydrate them. Plus, it's worth remembering that land that isn't traditionally used for conventional crop growth COULD be feasibly used to produce other veggies on a smaller scale...just because nobody's tried it, or they prefer lamb, doesn't mean it won't work. I know you can grow vegetables on otherwise unarable coniferous forest land.

there's so much land that's unusable for serious agriculture, that if everyone in the world were a vegan, world hunger would be worse and not better.


This position is based, I think, on a faulty understanding or lack of knowledge about growing food. Almost any kind of land that has water available can be made to grow vegetable crops for humans, using permaculture or biointensive techniques. I just think this idea that "world hunger" would be worse if animals stopped being raised on land unsuitable for conventional agriculture misses the main point that world hunger is not caused by a lack of food but by a lack of money. Food costs money, in our current system, and if you lack money, you lack food. Growing vegetable crops for humans rather than for animals is a much more efficient use of land and water, as far as calories are concerned. Animals that can be raised on waste products from raising vegetables, such as chickens and milk goats, can be used to provide concentrated calories from materials humans can't digest, but it makes no sense from a calorie standpoint to raise food specifically to feed animals (such as irrigated hay, a big crop in California and elsewhere), instead of using those same resources to grow vegetables for people.

Our entire way of growing food is wasteful, cruel (to humans and animals), and stupid. :furious:

[QUOTE=Kimberly]I understand, and I am arguing that all the crop land that is used to grow crops to feed the animals would be enough in and of itself to feed humans. QUOTE]

Hi, again. Sorry I didn't realize that was what you were saying from your post. Got it now. :)

That said, can you suggest some reading for me regarding this point of view? I have read diet for a small planet, for example (the older edition -- I don't know if there's a difference other than the recipes). If anyone has recommendations of books or resources online that deal with the vegetarianism/veganism/land use issue, I'm basically looking to read more about the subject.

Sorry to sound hung up on one particular article. It's just that I've heard that argument other places before, and am curious to know what people who've spent more time considering the issue than I have think about it. To be 100% honest: I was hoping someone would point me to hard and fast evidence that the guy is a crackpot and his numbers don't add up. Despite the fact I've been playing devils advocate, I'd really be happy to be reassured that by not eating other living creatures we could solve a lot of the world's problems -- I'd much rather that be the case.

The article actually bummed me out. The amount of research necessary to be an even moderately ethical consumer in America sometimes seems overwhelming. I have no problem with personal sacrifice for things I believe in, except the part where I wind up feeling like I need to be a global economist, diatician, and survey geologist, to say nothing of philosopher and theologian, before filling up my cart at the grocery store, or else risk doing the Wrong Thing.

But that's the way it is. So, anybody got recommended reading?

The fact is, nobody is going to starve from lack of sheep meat if people stop raising sheep in Scotland. People who raise sheep in Scotland would lose an income, which is what the guy really means when he says the land would become "unproductive." If the land hadn't been stripped of its original forests and wildlife, there would be far more productivity in terms of food than what is being produced there now. But the productivity that is important there now is an income for the people who raise sheep. Same with the people who raise goats here in Central Texas - they do it for a tax break.

I was just reading about this issue in a pamphlet from Ecology Action, about raising one's own diet in the smallest amount of space. It goes into detail about how much additional land is needed to raise animals, and how many calories one gets from the meat versus how many calories from vegetables that could have been raised on that same land. To raise a vegan diet for three people (man, woman, and child), it takes 7017 square feet. This diet falls short of calories for a man, so if sweet potatoes are added to make up the calories, the square footage needed is 7959 sq ft. If meat is added instead of sweet potatoes, an additional 14,000 - 15,000 square feet would be needed and this amount of meat still wouldn't provide total calories for the man. If goat's milk is added in lieu of sweet potatoes or meat, the total square footage needed (goat feed plus basic vegan diet crops) would be 10,725 sq ft.

The pamphlet is "One Basic Mexican Diet" byJ. Mogador Griffin, available here:

http://www.bountifulgardens.org/shop/gb-research-papers.html


I strongly recommend the publications from Ecology Action for anyone who is interested in growing their own diet or just interested in sustainable food production.

Ludi -- I'm ordering that pamphlet now. I figure I can't go wrong for 3 bucks.

I do agree that our entire way of growing food is wasteful, cruel, and stupid. I'm only seeking the best way to support a better one.

Thanks for the info.

Welcome, bailey

Here is a link to the article in question:
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/naiveveg.html

If killing animals is wrong, what about fish? Four-fifths of the Earth's surface is covered in ocean. Could the world's rapidly growing population be sustained if we did not farm it?

Last I knew the population was rapidly decreasing. And since when is it our job to regulate any animal population, I thought mother nature was dong a good job for the last few million years or so.

I've actually just come across this in Animal Liberation. Will read a bit more and let you know.

Last I knew the population was rapidly decreasing.


No, that is absolutely false. Birth rates are dropping, but the world population is still growing.U.N.: Expect 40% population growth, most in developing world (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7030046/)

And since when is it our job to regulate any animal population, I thought mother nature was dong a good job for the last few million years or so.

I think we've taken the job on. We regulate not only animal populations (through farming, habitat destruction etc.) but also plant populations, through the same means and others. Although 'regulate' is not the correct word. Affect, perhaps.

"Animal farming is an efficient use of land. Much of the land used for animal farming, cannot be used for arable farming. With a rapidly expanding world population, a large proportion of whom are already starving, how can taking this land out of production help?"

This argument only holds up when the land in question is of such poor quality that the only food that it can support is animals which eat vegetation which is inedible to us (e.g. areas which are rocky or have very little rainfall). This does not describe the situation for the mass majority of meat farming which occurs in first world countries. Most life stock in the United States is wastefully raised on grain. Most of the calories that go into an animal are used to produce heat, drive chemical reactions, contract muscles, etc rather than being converted to protein and fat which we can use. So, it only makes sense to view animals as a food source if they are eating a form of calories which are inaccessible to us.

"The killing of animals for food is morally wrong. Some animals are born to hunt, others to be hunted. This is natural. Does the lion have a moral right to kill an antelope? What are an antelope's 'rights' not to be eaten by a lion? Such questions are meaningless."

Taking moral cues from a species which possess a fraction of your intelligence is stupid and arguably morally wrong.

"Many become vegetarians because they believe that such a lifestyle is healthier. But vegetables, fruit and salads are not as healthy as we are told. They are contaminated with sewage sludge, viruses, polluted irrigation water, pesticides and herbicides."

:lol: The higher on the food chain you are the more you are exposed to nasty stuff. Grains are treated with chemicals, herbivores ingest the grains and the lipid soluble pesticides concentrate in the animal's fat, then silly humans come along and eat the animals, along with their concentrated source of pesticide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids==9134677
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3839207&query_hl=2
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6424401&query_hl=2

My two cents:

I don't really buy into the whole notion that every inch of the Earth has to be "productive."

My two cents:

I don't really buy into the whole notion that every inch of the Earth has to be "productive."

Neither do I, and the fact is, by us trying to make it "productive" for our purposes, we're actually reducing its productivity for everything, including ourselves. We're turning the entire biomass of the earth into human mass (our enormous population) and in doing so, we're ruining the life systems we depend on.

Compassion in World Farming has a really good report on this, arguing for at least drastically reduced meat production, they do some math about it. I think it's hard to generalize - and there's a tendancy to use relatively low-impact examples like sheep farming to defend high-density hog, beef, and chicken production, where that arguement is totally irrelevant.