Just how much animal blood do vegetarians have on their hands?

An online article claiming vegetarians are causing more animal deaths than meat eaters continues to cause arguments between the two camps. I am amazed this story is still doing the rounds. My understanding is that the original article appeared in The Conversation in 2011, maybe (it’s not all that clear in the article – there’s a link, but no reference) inspired by a book by Peter Singer. This week, IFLS has discovered it and it has been copied and shared and passed on in social media and via e-mail. The Conversation article represents one of the few pieces of literature (to my knowledge it is not what the scientific community would consider a true piece of peer-reviewed published research) that suggests meat eating is “better” than a vegetable-based diet and consequently has received a lot of attention, particularly (in my experience) from meat-eaters. It has probably been quite the boost for the associated authors’ careers. I have seen similar responses to articles refuting climate change…

My biggest concern with the original article (and therefore any further articles which claim scientific substance) is that it is based on figures of the number of mice killed per hectare of arable land, compared with the number of pasture raised cattle killed for meat. Even assuming that the questionable figures are accurate in the first place, it makes no mention of mice deaths in cattle pasture. In my view, they should have analysed the number of ALL sentient beings killed in each farming practice, since they are concluding from the mouse/cattle data that there are more individual deaths in arable farming than meat.

Also of significance is the displacement of animals which is also ignored in the article. Pasture is a dramatically different ecosystem to a native, unimproved grassland. This article considers the killing of mice as the only significant problem, but there are many more that will die or not be born as a result of the decreased area of habitat, as native animals are pushed out by cattle and sheep.

The article also ignores import/export, which is a major factor in Australian agriculture and the food industry. I don’t know the current figures, but about 10 years ago, Australia was simultaneously the world’s second largest importer and exporter of beef. Aside from us destroying our native habitat to produce cattle for an overseas market, we also import and export huge amounts of vegetable matter for food. Australia is part of the global market and food trade routes pass in and out of our productive country.

There is also a suggestion by the author that the rangelands can only be used as cattle grazing or arable land. I would argue that although there may be no nutritional value in not farming land, by reducing the pressure caused by invasive species (such as cattle) and the direct manipulation of the habitat required to do as such in some areas, the increase of intensity in areas currently used as arable fields is at least in part mitigated.

The author states: ” if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do” which, aside from the sensationalist, deliberately vague language, is not the same message of the next paragraph: “we should choose the way that causes the least unnecessary harm to animals.” which is also not the same as “sustainable agriculture”. The author does later touch on the surface of sustainability in agriculture, but the piece of research that this article is primarily based upon does not have any significant claims either way about sustainability. The message of this article is confused as well as erroneous.

Lastly, it is essential to remember that the book was published by an ethicist. Whilst I don’t think that alone is grounds to discredit it, it does explain why much of the bigger ecological picture has been ignored. The untangling of ethics and ecology is a long-standing problem, as can be attested to by anyone trying to perform research in the field. In this story though, the application of ecological principles to what started as a purely ethical discussion is abused and/or misguided.

So if you are going for steak, please make it kangaroo. I am still undecided entirely about the merits of it – there is no shortage of examples of species being eaten to extinction – but as long as we don’t all immediately do it, it’s probably the better choice at present. This is an important discussion to continue and we have a responsibility to research and question the impact of our diet, so please do not cherry pick the numbers to suit your lifestyle. Ethics, ecology and food security are real and important issues affecting us now and in the future.


ALL creatures great and small

There is significant bias in conservation. Every grant or proposal we write tries desperately to explain why the species or community in question is more important than the cute fluffy ones, the large obvious ones, or the charismatic familiar ones.

Sadly is is all too common an occurrence and I suspect that at the root of the problem there is not enough money to go around. Here is an excellent example of how and why the bias is applied.

Sea change

The other day I implored you to sign a “Save the reef” petition. Here’s the back story:

The Great Barrier reef was named a World Heritage Site in 1981. There is no denying its beauty and ecological importance.

The reef has been threatened by storm damage, invasive species and bleaching as outlined in an Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) report.

But despite the established vulnerability of the reef, a classic battle of economy versus ecology broke out…

In March 2012, Greenpeace released a report on the threat of mining to the Great Barrier Reef.

The Australian Institute of Marine Science (interestingly, AIMS is a government agency) report from above was released that October and in the same month, the Queensland Government announced it’s Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy. In a nutshell, it was a proposal to develop huge parts of the Great Barrier Reef adjacent coastline, enabling ships to travel through the reef.

UNESCO (the World Heritage status awarding body) warned the Queensland government no to further damage the reef and to cease activity until the full extent of the impact is known . The Queensland Government, rather embarrassingly, ignored UNESCO.

The Australian government research agency, CSIRO is the latest to join the conversation by researching public opinion of the reef. It will be interesting to see if the questioned individuals reflect the concerns of the environmental groups or the careless attitude of the government.

In the meantime, I hope that someone in our beautiful country realises the importance of the reef, the unsustainability of the mining industry and the transient nature of money. This is at best a nasty blot on the conservation record of Australia, at worst is spells catastrophe for all of the World’s  “protected” areas as other governments follow suit and the damage to the reef is reflected in its environmental connections.

Save The Great Barrier Reef

If you only do one thing this week, make it signing this.


The Great Barrier Reef is more than just one of the most beautiful places in the world. It is an essential ecosystem, much of which we know little or nothing about.

We also know that the unsustainable practices being proposed will destroy not only the integrity of the reef, but the true amount of damage will not be discovered until it is likely too late.

If you have children, or want children, or even want their to be anything left for anybody else’s children, we have to consider the reality of the destruction we have the potential to slow, mitigate or stop.

More badger-centric news

From Nature News, the link below is for an interview with DEFRA official Ian Boyd. Since he is all about protecting the food production industry, he says that the problem lies with tuberculosis and the “badger-cattle interface”. He mentions the implementation of change in farming methods, such as cattle movement controls and does a good job of explaining that it’s not all about badger control. He also says that “…reducing wildlife populations and killing cattle is not going to actually produce the elimination that we’re really striving for.” when talking about the importance of vaccines.

For all the protesting and letter-writing and marching, the consumer perhaps has a greater power than they realise in this story. By consuming less animal products, we can lessen the need to cull badgers.

By voting with our dollar (or pound) we have a greater impact than any amount of blowing hot air. We live in a World where food is produced to make money, not to make food. Whilst we may have limited power to change things at the governmental level, we, as consumers, unbeknownst to a lot of us, actually control the market an in turn the production methods. Buy and eat responsibly!


British Badger Cull, the proponent

Kudos to the author of the linked article. Ms. Wollaston has presumably voiced the thoughts of her constituents clearly and unreservedly.

Of course, she spectacularly misses the point several times but provides an example of the anti-badger sentiment that led to the cull in the first place. British wildlife must bear nearly no resemblance to it’s “natural” state. I would suggest that the native animals need all the help they can get and that we take a long hard look at our methods of producing food.

Interesting that Ms. Wollaston should consider this article necessary given that the politicians of her kind have “won”. The cull has had the go ahead. At the end of the article she makes reference to the need for a fair price for milk. I find it hard to see how she makes the connection between the two subjects. My only suggestion is that Ms. Wollaston recognises that the dairy industry is in trouble for more reasons that bovine TB.


UK Badger Cull

As a child I remember my friend, a cattle farmer’s son, bemoaning the presence of badgers on their property. The discussion about the transmission of Bovine TB via badgers has continued for most of my life and has recently come to a head. Two areas have been given the go ahead to kill badgers. Will it make a difference? Time will tell.

Badgers are implemented in the transmission of Bovine TB. That’s not thought to be controversial. Also implemented are modern farming methods – intensive farming, excessive travelling distances etc.,  but no-one seems to be keen to address these issues. As usual, the native ecosystem suffers before the consumer or the producer’s pocket.

The BBC offers an easy to read Q & A article on the badger cull: