do vegans realise that the same amount of animals die when growing up vegetables?!

Actually there's research showing more animals die during the planting, cultivation, and harvesting of veggies and grains. I've often wondered why veg*ns think the life of a cow or chicken is more important that the life of a field mice or bunny rabbit?

More at the link:

"Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them.
2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows and kill animals.
3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed by predators.
4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest, etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet) kills far more animals of the field than would extensive agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines. So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/9…

I guess some worms, bugs, rats, mice and rabbits might get caught in the machinery by accident, but I doubt it is the same amount of animals. How did you do this scientific study?

Still there is the question of land usage to food per acre. More vegetables can be grown on land vs animals raised on land. Also there is the question of manure and urine runoff into streams as pollution. Also there is the antibiotics and hormones and drugs given to factory animals (who don't live a normal life by any means). You eat these leftover antibiotics, hormones and drugs that are left over in the animal's tissues/meat.

There is the main question of animal suffering. Then there is the question of waste of land when more vegetables can feed more people per acre than raising animals. Then there is the question of pollution of manure and urine into streams (and even e-coli on vegetables from animal manure fertilizer). Then there is the question of what cholesterol and drugs are you taking into your system and what is this doing to you in terms of heart disease, cancer, etc.

Actually it isn't the "same amount of animals" it is likely that some animals are killed in the course mechanically harvesting crops. Daisy's link claims that "There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US (USDA, 2000). If all of that land was used to produce a plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or 1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet." Even accepting those estimates as the gospel truth, that is significantly lower than the current 10 billion or so a year that are killed in farms. Even the largest estimate I have seen of those numbers is still much, much smaller than the number of animals killed in the US for meat.

I have three responses to this argument:

1) A vast amount of crops (particularly corn) go into making feed for farm animals. If you want to cut down the number of animals killed in harvesting, then reduce the number of animals going through factory farms. Then you'll save the animals who would have been slaughtered plus the animals who would have been killed in the fields. One reason to be skeptical of the estimates in Daisy's link is that they assume that all current cropland would continue to be harvested in order to feed humans, but since much, and in cases like corn most, of the crops go to animal feed, raising fewer animals for slaughter would result in having to harvest fewer crops. If everybody in the US were vegan, fewer crops would have to be harvested (most of the calories that animals consume in feed simply goes to keeping them alive- eating the crops which would have gone into that feed would be far more efficient).

2) Many vegans and vegetarians oppose the kind of mass farming that causes harvesting deaths. A lot of them, for example, favor small and organic farms. Your objection wouldn't really apply to them.

3) The animals being killed in the fields at least have been able to lead good lives, unlike the animals in factory farms. If you absolutely have to choose one, it seems much more humane to allow an animal to live their natural life then kill them than to keep an animal confined in horrific conditions then kill them.


Are vegans really making a difference? I think that is a good question. The reason why vegans may not be making a difference, though, isn't because of your argument here but because there are so few of them. Currently vegans exercise a very small share of the market and political electorate - that means both companies and politicians will tend to ignore their cause. The solution to that isn't to abandon veganism, but to get more people to adopt it, or at least be conscious of the serious harms associated with meat production.

PS: Everything I wrote above assumed that the study your argument is based on, the one Daisy linked to, was properly conducted. There are reasons to think it was not:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a…
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v072…

Vegans eat far, far more than vegetables. There are more than two food groups, sweetie.


The idea that you're putting forth (b@stardizing actually) was asserted by one Steven Davis of Oregon State, and it involved

1. eating meat from GRASS-FED FREE RANGE RUMINANTS ( not the vast majority, which are factory-farmed) *might* save more animals than a vegan diet
2. He, himself, admitted the theory was flawed, in that it calculates number of animals killed per acre (as opposed to consumer), and was based on only two studies.
3. Davis's OWN numbers show that veganism causes the least harm to animals

I am sorry I don't follow your logic.
Yes, I agree animals still die in production of vegetables and grains, but I certainly don't see how the same number die. Especially since if I were to eat meat, I would STILL be eating vegetables as well. So wouldn't it be twice as many animals dying?

not a vegetarian to "save" animals

oh its the same now is it? I thought it was at least 1000% more, according to the hunter gatherers who post here.

Here's the link which exposes the link Daisy gave as lies: Andy Lamey (2007). Food Fight! Davis versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef. Journal of Social Philosophy Volume 38, Issue 2, pages 331–348.
http://tinyurl.com/4mdysgk

You are completely retarded if you think harvesting a days worth of grain and vegetables is the equivalent to the disgusting slaughter of thousands upon thousands of animals. Troll fails once again.

If a large enough percentage of people became vegan, farmers wouldn't raise as many animals to slaughter.

I see this is your second anti-vegan question in this forum.

I suspect you have deeper issues if you are going out of your way to try to convince us that we are doing something wrong.

if we ate meat even more animals would die cause those animals have to eat vegetables to grow.

No way

What!