livestock farming can have benefits for the environment?

I've been trying to become more informed about agricultural practices so that I can really understand what the harms of livestock farming to the environment are. I found a long, but very interesting and technical document on livestock farming by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN.

As we all know livestock can cause severe problems in terms of soil compaction, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion and degradation, etc., but there could also be some advantages after all when it is very carefully managed. I am sceptical of most listed benefits, like increased biodiversity, but I'll describe a particular farming system that could be beneficial.

That is the mixed farming system where livestock and agricultural crops are managed in a single system where livestock feed on crop residue (stalks after harvesting) and manure is used for field fertilisation. Fertilising soil for sustained crop production is actually a real problem. In many traditional farming practices, the balance between livestock and crops meant that these two processes supported each other. Also animals can also be used to plough fields, reducing the need for imported machinery and use of fossil fuels. When crop production outstrips livestock production, fertilizers must be bought which can cause nutrient overloading and pollution. Crop production is also a more intensive use of the land, whereas grazing can support a greater range of life.

I don't really understand it all that well, but I do realise that many people's livelihoods depend on livestock and perhaps livestock can help with sustainable crop production.

Personally, I think that an overdependence on one investment can lead to dire straits in times of drought such as in Kenya, Somalia and Sudan where they depend heavily on cattle. It's interesting to note that those areas occuring in natural reserves don't seem nearly as badly hit by the droughts (i.e. much more vegetation, no dead animals lying around) as the grazed areas.

In the end, even if livestock can have benefits to the environment, I cannot condone their use if they are ill-treated or killed for meat. Cattle and sheep can be kept for milk and wool, used for manure production and ploughing if and only if they are allowed to live in a comfortable, semi-natural way.

Fluffy Teddy bear

Fluffy Teadybear
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

Meet Grubby. I found Grubby, a sad matted mess lost in the streets of Claremont at the end of 2004. Yet I saw in his little bewildered face, something quite unique and couldn't leave him. I took him home with me, even though I new the landowner would not be pleased. Within a few days, Grubby and I were totally bonded, but I knew I couldn't keep him. So I took him to SPCA. I was horrified when I found out there was a good chance he'd be put down so I begged my reluctant dad to take him. Grub-Grub, as my dad calls him, has captured his heart too.

Isn't it wonderful the kind of delight and love animals can bring us?
Unless we are exposed to animals of all shapes and sizes, we tend to think of them, as robots, but really they are full of personality, whether rabbit, parrot, cat or dog.

I think our relationship with animals can teach us important things with our relationships with people. How is it that we can have such special bonds with beings who cannot talk? Perhaps we make things too complicated, when what we want is really very simple? Love, acceptance, body warmth and touch, companionship...

How exciting - Let's not look for intelligent Life in Space, but appreciate that Life on Earth!

Burden of proof

Sorry for the long break in posts. I've been very busy lately and it's been Easter holidays (I don't have Internet at home).

I just want to leave you with the thought: Why should the burden of proof that eating meat supports inhumane farming practices lie with vegetarians? Surely it is meat-eaters who should prove to the world that the industry they support is not harmful. Since it is very possible (and is commonly the case) that animals are being mistreated in farming practices, why don't we rather err on the side of caution, i.e. let's not eat meat unless we know where the meat comes from and how those animals were/are treated?

animal interests

I've been planning something rather grand, but it aint gonna happen, besides this is blogging...

How do we know that animals do actually have interests and are not simply sophisticated machines? Insects have primitive nervous systems, they react to stimulus in a way that tries to avoid harm, does this mean they feel pain? Not necessarily, for example if an insect damages a leg it doesn't shield it or favor other legs, it doesn't seem to be aware of the damage at all. Even some plants can release chemicals when they are eaten to 'warn' other plants which then become bitterer. This doesn't mean they it suffers, just that it has evolved mechanisms to help it survive. It isn't difficult to imagine a complicated robot programmed to avoid harm that does not feel pain. Fetuses go through a phase where they react to stimulus (like retracting away from sharp objects) but do not feel pain. When they start feeling pain is the subject of fierce controversy. Mammals show signs of suffering because they do favour injured limbs and distress lingers so long as the injury is a problem. They can also be affected psychologically, take a trip to the SPCA, some dogs are terrified of humans no matter how gentle they are. It's not a wild leap to guess that they were physically abused by humans in the past.

There is a more subtle reason why we can guess that animals (particularly mammals) suffer from pain in similar ways to humans. Their nervous systems are similar to ours. Senses (like touch) are expensive (in terms of food) to maintain and repair. Any gadget a species has must be useful for it to be retained, for example brains are very expensive (our brains make up a small percentage of our mass, but uses about 40% of our food), in the past couple thousand year's domestic animals haven't needed their brains as much and they have predictably shrunk. Animals wouldn't have or maintain complex nervous systems if they didn't use them and since they look and function much like ours, they suffering from pain must be similar.

Opposite day!

Following a trend on the blogosphere I'll be inviting a friend of mine “Steve” to make an argument that I disagree with. So why don't you point out where Steve goes wrong.

Life is desirable, everybody agrees about that. The farming industry breeds billions of animals every year that would never been alive if we didn't demand meat. By demanding that we close down farms animal rights nuts are actually denying millions of animal's life. Yes, yes, I know that their life is usually unpleasant but millions of humans have unpleasant lives but you don't hear that many voices actually saying they would be better off if they hadn't been born (not in public anyway). Anyway the point is not to stop them existing, it's to get them a better life by improving conditions in the farms. Of course this is only remotely practical if people are willing to pay for it and that will only happen if they can eat the animals. Suffering may harm the animals but death does not. They don’t fear death like humans; they don't know it's coming at all. And they can't know what they are being brought up for. A painless death ends no hopes or dreams, it doesn't harm them.

So, eating meat and consuming animal byproducts is good, it is a plausible way of providing pleasant, happy lives to billions of animals. Humans should be so lucky.

Religion degrades the value of animal lives!

Before I express my opinion, let me say, that I know not all religious people believe the above, especially some of my friends. My opinion is based on some common things I've heard said recently in some religious gatherings.

I am of the opinion that religion encourages us to not to take animals seriously. It does this by regarding human beings as spiritual beings who alone can comprehend God. Animals cannot comprehend the concept of God, are not spiritual and therefore trivial. Religious folk seem to equate animals with automata like Kant. Animals are mere biological machines that respond to stimuli. Also, religious people see it as degrading to compare human beings to animals. When human beings are not "spiritual" or religious, they are seen to be living on the level of animals. This degradation of animals and placing of humans on a supernatural pedastal can encourage us to overlook the individuality, value and heart of animals (and atheists!). (Please, tell me, if I have misunderstood the opinions of religious people.)

Personally, I don't see this great spiritual divide between humans and animals because I believe we are made of the same stuff. Yes we are further evolved in certain capacities, especially intellectual, but I believe that there are degrees of difference between us and other animals, shades of grey, not black and white. Dr Jane Goodall, would tell you about the similarities between us and chimpanzees, not just in genetics, but in behaviour. Chimpanzees are all individuals, some are strong and aggressive, others gentle and wise, some make good mothers, others are neglectful. They also have complex politics and use tools to get by daily life. The flat where I live, hosts 7 cats and it's fascinating to watch the antics and politics of this community. When I interact with animals, I think it is so wonderful to share this planet with other conscious beings who recognise and communicate with me.

I am tired of animals (and atheists) being degraded by being described as immoral, biological machines, whose lives are essentially meaningless. It's too easy for humans to categorise beings, as "us and them". Them, not at all being like us.