Archives for posts with tag: Pigs

The climatarian diet must exclude pig, chicken, fish, egg and dairy

January 31, 2016 //

With dietary choices increasingly highlighted as a major contributor to climate change, it may be tempting to argue in favour of certain forms of meat consumption over others.

That’s a key element of the so-called “climatarian” diet. Here’s how the New York Times defines it: [1]

“A diet whose primary goal is to reverse climate change. This includes eating locally produced food (to reduce energy spent in transportation), choosing pork and poultry instead of beef and lamb (to limit gas emissions), and using every part of ingredients (apple cores, cheese rinds, etc.) to limit food waste.”

But can such choices realistically achieve what may be hoped for?

This article focuses on greenhouse gas emissions, but firstly a word on the issue of eating locally.

“Post-farm” emissions, including those from transportation, only account for 0.5 per cent of beef’s emissions, so there’s not much benefit in purchasing the locally produced product. [2] For lower-emissions products, transportation’s share of emissions is higher; Nijdam, et al. have reported an average contribution across all food types of around 11 per cent. [3]

Emissions intensity

Many life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have shown that meat from ruminant animals, such as cows and sheep, is far more emissions intensive than that from pigs, chickens or fish, while emissions from plant-based foods are lower still. Ruminants emit large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and often graze widely, with implications for CO2 emissions through land clearing and soil carbon losses.

The LCA figures are generally based on a greenhouse gas “global warming potential” (GWP) calculated over a 100-year time horizon. [4]

The adverse impact is even more pronounced when a 20-year time horizon is used, primarily because most of the methane breaks down in the atmosphere before that point. As a result, the 100-year measure (showing the average impact of a gas over the longer period) understates methane’s shorter-term impacts, as it would be almost non-existent over the final eighty years.

Its significant impact in the early stages can be critical when considering feedback mechanisms that contribute to accelerating, potentially irreversible changes in our climate system.

Comparative emissions intensities of different food products, relative to their protein content, are outlined in Figure 1. [Footnotes 1 and 2] The chart shows figures with 20-year and 100-year GWPs. The 100-year livestock figures, other than fish, are based on global average estimates from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [5] The figures for fish and other products are from a 2014 paper by Oxford University researchers, who drew on the work of the Food Climate Research Network and the World Wildlife Fund [6] [7]. Where relevant, they have been adjusted to a 20-year basis utilising GWP estimates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) 2013 Fifth Assessment Report.

The figures for beef represent meat from the specialised beef herd, rather than meat from the dairy herd. Dairy beef’s emissions are relatively low, as the herd’s emissions are also attributed to dairy products, such as milk and cheese.

The FAO reports were based on LCAs using its Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM). The model, like the LCA assessment utilised by Oxford, took into account emissions along the supply chain to the retail point. For meat, they are based on carcass weight.

The figures for animal-based foods, in particular, vary significantly by region, and are influenced by factors such as feed digestibility, livestock management practices, reproduction performance and land use.

The figures take into account protein estimates from the US Department of Agriculture’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. [6]

Figure 1: kg CO2-e greenhouse gas / kg protein based on GWP100 and GWP20 (global average figures)

The twenty-year figures for beef, sheep meat, pig meat and cows’ milk are influenced by the high proportion of methane emissions, ranging from 25.8 per cent (pigs) to 56.9 per cent (sheep). Most of pigs’ methane emissions, representing 19.2 per cent of their total emissions, come from manure management.

Is it okay to eat other animal products?

Even using the conservative 100-year time horizon, chicken meat, pig meat, fish and eggs are more than 3 times as emissions intensive as soybeans. Based on the 20-year period, pig meat is 5 times, and eggs are nearly 6 times. (The time period does not affect the emissions intensity of chicken meat and fish, as methane is not a significant factor in their emissions.)

If climate change impacts were considered to be a cost in their own right, those figures could be expressed as chicken meat being 200 per cent more “expensive”, pig meat being 400 per cent more “expensive”, and eggs being 500 per cent more “expensive”, than soybeans.

Inefficiencies on that scale would not normally be tolerated in government or private sector businesses, where discrepancies of 5 – 10 per cent can mean life or death to any project or program. Why should such levels of inefficiency be tolerated when they relate to greenhouse gas emissions, particularly when our current position in relation to climate change is so precarious?

A climate emergency with no buffer

As poorly as pig meat, chicken meat, fish and eggs compare to plant-based options on the basis of emissions intensity, that measure is only part of the story.

We face an emergency in which we are effectively sitting on the edge of a precipice, with little room to move before we lose any ability to favourably influence our climate system. [9] [10] In such a dangerous position, we need to select those dietary choices with the best chance of allowing us to move to a position of relative safety.

Due to the rapid expansion of soybean plantations for animal feed, consumption of pig and chicken meat, farmed fish, eggs and dairy products plays a critical role in the destruction of the Amazon rainforest and other carbon-rich ecosystems, such as the Cerrado region further south. [11]

With rising global temperatures and excessive forest fragmentation, we may be pushing the rainforest toward a dangerous threshold. Such fragmentation can lead to general drying and an increased propensity for fires and other causes of loss. Studies published in late 2014 and early 2015 documented the extremely adverse long-term effects of forest fragmentation, including carbon losses far in excess of what was previously believed. Much of the fragmentation arises from agriculture, including livestock feed crops. [12] [13]

Dieback of the Amazon rainforest represents a potential tipping point, where a small change in human activity can lead to abrupt and significant changes in earth systems, with catastrophic and irreversible impacts. [14] Even in the absence of clear tipping points, climate feedback mechanisms create accelerating, potentially irreversible changes.

It could be argued that any agricultural plantation in the Amazon basin and elsewhere represents an environmental problem. That is true, but the problem is magnified in regard to animal feed, due to the gross and inherent inefficiency of animals as a food source. In converting soybeans to pig and chicken meat for example, we lose around 80 per cent of the plant-based protein used in the production process. [15] That means the land area required is around five times the area required if we obtained the protein directly from plants.

Feed conversion ratios of various livestock production systems are shown in Figure 2, which can also be seen in the article Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point. The researchers determined the figures by analysing between twenty-nine and eighty-three studies per item.

Figure 2: Feed conversion ratios (kg feed protein required per kg of animal protein produced)

Although soybean meal for livestock feed was once considered a by-product of soybean oil production, it is the requirement for livestock feed that now drives the international soybean trade. [16]

China’s livestock sector is the major global consumer of traded soy products. However, the trade is global, and demand pressure from any country contributes to an increase in overall supply, thereby increasing pressure on critical ecosystems in soy-producing regions.

In the absence of an overall global shift away from ruminant meat such as beef and lamb (the opposite trend is occurring in many developing nations), any increase in the consumption of pig meat, chicken meat, fish, eggs and dairy products will almost certainly cause soybean plantations to expand, rather than contract, with the potential loss of the massive carbon sink that the Amazon basin and Cerrado region represent. On the other hand, a general move away from those products may allow vast areas of cleared land to regenerate to something approaching their natural state.

Corn is also a major component of animal feed production. The crop is far more water and nutrient intensive than soy, so its use has major implications for producing nations, including those in South America. [17]

Other overlooked climate change impacts of consuming fish and other sea creatures

I recently commented on a paper that had appeared in Nature Climate Change, which had helped to highlight some of the impact of industrial and non-industrial fishing on our climate system. [18] [19] The problem arises largely from the fact that fishing disturbs food webs, changing the way ecosystems function, and altering the ecological balance of the oceans in dangerous ways. The paper focused on the phenomenon of “trophic downgrading”, the disproportionate loss of species high in the food chain, and its impact on vegetated coastal habitats consisting of seagrass meadows, mangroves and salt marshes.

The loss of predators such as large carnivorous fish, sharks, crabs, lobsters, seals and sea lions, and the corresponding population increase of herbivores and bioturbators (creatures that disturb ocean sediment, including certain crabs) causes loss of carbon from the vegetation and sediment. The ocean predators are either caught intentionally by fishing fleets, or as by-catch when other species are targeted.

The affected oceanic habitats are estimated to store up to 25 billion tonnes of carbon, making them the most carbon-rich ecosystems in the world. They sequester carbon 40 times faster than tropical rainforests and contribute 50 per cent of the total carbon buried in ocean sediment.

Estimates of the areas affected are unavailable, but if only 1 per cent of vegetated coastal habitats were affected to a depth of 1 metre in a year, around 460 million tonnes of CO2 could be released. That is around the level of emissions from all motor vehicles in Britain, France and Spain combined, or a little under Australia’s current annual emissions. If 10 per cent of such habitats were affected to the same depth, it would be equivalent to emissions from all motor vehicles in the top nine vehicle-owning nations (USA, China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, Italy, Germany, and Russia), whose share of global vehicle numbers is 61 per cent. It would also equate to around eight times Australia’s emissions.

Loss of ongoing carbon sequestration is the other problem. If sequestration capability was reduced by 20 per cent in only 10 per cent of vegetated coastal habitats, it would equate to a loss of forested area the size of Belgium.

These impacts only relate to vegetated coastal habitats, and do not allow for loss of predators on kelp forests, coral reefs or open oceans, or the direct impact on habitat of destructive fishing techniques such as trawling. They are not accounted for in the emissions intensity figures referred to earlier, or in national greenhouse gas inventories.

Conclusion

The argument of those who encourage increased consumption of pig meat, chicken meat, fish and eggs at the expense of beef and lamb is essentially one of “getting the biggest bang for the buck”, as reflected in the relative emissions intensity of different products. However, consumption of the supposedly more favourable animal-based foods has adverse impacts that are unaccounted for in most forms of climate change reporting, which should cause them to sit alongside ruminant meat in terms of campaigning efforts.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)

Footnotes

The “GWP 20” figures are based on the global average percentage split of the various factors contributing to the relevant products’ emissions intensity, and are intended to be approximations only.
Pulses comprise chickpeas, lentils, dried beans and dried peas. Along with soybeans, peanuts, fresh beans and fresh peas, they are members of the “legume” food group.
This article focuses on climate change, but other critical environmental impacts arise from animal-based food production, such as contamination of land and waterways from animal waste, largely related to the inherent inefficiency of animals as a food source.

References

[1] Moskin, J., “‘Hangry’? Want a Slice of ‘Piecaken’? The Top New Food Words for 2015”, The New York Times, 15th December, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/dining/new-food-words.html?_r=0

[2] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf , extract of Fig. 7, p. 24

[3] Nijdam, D., Rood, T., & Westhoek, H. (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency), “The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes”, Food Policy, 37 (2012) 760–770, published online 26^th September, 2012, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919212000942

[4] Mahony, P. “GWP Explained”, Terrastendo, 14th June, 2013 (updated 15th March, 2015), https://terrastendo.net/gwp-explained/

[5] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Table 5, p. 24, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

[6] Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1

[7] Audsley E., Brander M., Chatterton J., Murphy-Bokern D.,Webster C., Williams A. (2009) “How low can we go? an
assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope to reduce them by 2050″. Food Climate Research Network & WWF, London, UK, cited in Scarorough, et al., ibid, http://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrn/publications/how-low-can-we-go and http://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/WWF_How_Low_Report.pdf

[8] USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ via Nutrition Data http://www.nutritiondata.com

[9] Mahony, P., “The climate crisis requires emergency action”, Terrastendo, 24th August, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/08/24/the-climate-crisis-requires-emergency-action/

[10] Mahony, P. “On the edge of a climate change precipice“, Terrastendo, 3rd March, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/03/03/on-the-edge-of-a-climate-change-precipice/

[11] Brown, L.R., “Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity, Chapter 9, China and the Soybean Challenge”, Earth Policy Institute, 6 November, 2013, http://www.earthpolicy.org/books/fpep/fpepch9

[12] Pütz, S., Groeneveld, J., Henle, K., Knogge, C., Martensen, A.C., Metz, M., Metzger, J.P., Ribeiro, M.C., de Paula, M. D., M. & Andreas Huth, A., “Long-term carbon loss in fragmented Neotropical forests”, Nature Communications 5:5037 doi: 10.1038/ncomms6037 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6037, cited in Hance, J., “Forest fragmentation’s carbon bomb: 736 million tonnes C02 annually”, Mongabay, 9th October, 2014, http://news.mongabay.com/2014/10/forest-fragmentations-carbon-bomb-736-million-tonnes-c02-annually/, cited in Mahony, P., “Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point”, Terrastendo, 5th October, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/10/05/chickens-pigs-and-the-amazon-tipping-point/

[13] Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R.D., Lovejoy, T.E., Sexton, J.O., Austin, M.P., Collins, C.D., Cook, W.M., Damschen, E.I., Ewers, R.M., Foster, B.L., Jenkins, C.N., King, A.J., Laurance, W.F., Levey, D.J., Margules, C.R., Melbourne, B.A., Nicholls, A.O., Orrock, J.L., Song, D-X., and Townshend, J.R., “Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems”, Science Advances, 20 Mar 2015: Vol. 1, no. 2, e1500052 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500052, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/2/e1500052.full, cited in Bell., L., “World’s fragmented forests are deteriorating”, Mongabay, 24th March, 2015, http://news.mongabay.com/2015/03/worlds-fragmented-forests-are-deteriorating/, cited in Mahony, P., “Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point”, ibid.

[14] Lenton, T.M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J.W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., Schellnhuber, H.J., “Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system“, PNAS 2008 105 (6) 1786-1793; published ahead of print February 7, 2008, doi:10.1073/pnas.0705414105, http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full

[15] Tilman, D., Clark, M., “Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health”, Nature515, 518–522 (27 November 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13959, Extended Data Table 7 “Protein conversion ratios of livestock production systems”, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html#t7, cited in Mahony, P., “Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point”, op. cit.

[16] McFarlane, I. and O’Connor, E.A., “World soybean trade: growth and sustainability”, Modern Economy, 2014, 5, 580-588, Published Online May 2014 in SciRes, Table 1, p. 582, http://www.scirp.org/journal/me, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/me.2014.55054, cited in Mahony, P., “Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point”, Terrastendo, op. cit.

[17] Levitt, T., “Who will feed China’s pigs? And why it matters to us”, China Dialogue, 18th August, 2014, https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/7226-Who-will-feed-China-s-pigs-And-why-it-matters-to-us, cited in Mahony, P., “Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point”, op. cit.

[18] Mahony, P., “Seafood and climate change: The surprising link”, New Matilda, 23rd November, 2015, https://newmatilda.com/2015/11/23/seafood-and-climate-change-the-surprising-link/

[19] Atwood, T.B., Connolly, R.M., Ritchie, E.G., Lovelock, C.E., Heithaus, M.R., Hays, G.C., Fourqurean, J.W., Macreadie, P.I., “Predators help protect carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems”, published online 28 September 2015, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2763.html, cited in Mahony, P., “Seafood and climate change: The surprising link”, ibid.

Image

Bull Spain © Afagundes | Dreamstime.com

Update

Figure 2 added on 25th October 2016

Tags animal agriculture, climatarian, climate, climate change, cowspiracy, environment, Factory farming, livestock, Pigs, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Is helping the helpless a crime?

December 25, 2015 //

Animal rights campaigner, Dori Kiss, spoke at the Melbourne Pig Save rally outside the GPO building in the heart of the city’s shopping precinct in late October, 2015.

In her speech, Dori spoke of police raiding her home and laying charges against her after she had reported horrendous treatment of animals at a New South Wales piggery. One of those animals is shown in this post’s main image, which is said to be from Springview Piggery in the town of Gooloogong.

Here’s what the Aussiepigs website says about the image and Springview:

“In late October 2013, a sow was discovered in a terrible condition, unable to move, with large bloody wounds on both of her front legs. She could not reach food or water. Activists were able to find a dish and fill it with water to give to her, and after some initial hesitance, she began frantically drinking litre after litre.

Many other sows were found with large untreated injuries, most of them in the sow stalls. Activists called police the following morning, but nobody was sent until three days later. The police were advised by the owners that the sow had suffered severe prolapses after giving birth to a litter of stillborns, damaging the nerves in her back legs and leaving her partially paralysed.

The owners had called in a vet sometime on Thursday 24th or Friday 25th October, who suggested they leave her over the weekend to see if her condition improved, and if not, to ‘destroy’ her. So she was left without food, water, treatment or attention of any sort, until Monday the 28th, when they killed her.

Despite this serious case of neglect, and the apparently undersized sow stalls, the owners of Springview Piggery have not been charged with any animal cruelty offences.”

The Aussiepigs website and Aussie Farms (referred to below) are run by Chris Delforce, who is also facing charges.

Here is a five-minute video and transcript of Dori’s speech (with video introduction by Melbourne Pig Save co-founder, Karina Leung).

“As a woman, the worst thing that I could imagine is to be tortured, to be raped, to have a stick thrust into my vagina, full of stranger’s sperm, then stuffed into a cage growing full of pregnancy. In the dead of night, inside my cage, I give birth to these children, some of them already dead as they slip out of my body. I can’t reach them, I can’t comfort them; all I can do is grieve. Grieve for myself, grieve for my own mother that suffered the same as me, grieve for my children, my children that will grow up to be only a few months old before being shipped off, never to see freedom, to have their blood drained from a gaping hole in their throats, to be cut up and served as bacon, next to chicken’s period.

My name is Dori Kiss, and I have been charged with five counts of break and enter, to cause an indictable offence. And that indictable offence is to record the suffering of these animals.

One of these charges is based on a report that I gave to police about a sow, trapped in a farrowing crate, paralysed, gaping wounds on her front legs, unable to even reach water.

I walked into the police station, and demanded that they help my fellow woman. She needed help, and they did absolutely nothing for her. When I walked out of that shed that night, and closed the door on her, my heart could have burst. What could I do to help her? I didn’t have the ability to lift her out of her cage of torture. What could I do, who could I ask to help? I needed someone to help.

The RSPCA? No. After what they did, or better said, didn’t do, for all the pigs at Wally’s Piggery, where pigs were being tortured and killed after first being stunned with a sledgehammer, and the RSPCA walked away and did nothing.

I would go to the police. They must help. But they didn’t. Instead, they have tried to build a case against me, tried to make me into a criminal, for helping to expose the torture that goes on every single day inside animal farms. They did nothing for the animals.

I may face jail time for what I have done, but the fact is that nothing that society can inflict on me is anything compared to the suffering of animals on animal farms. Nothing could be as bad as what happens to the poor animals. And for them, I will fight till my dying breath.

To my fellow human beings that still eat animals, that still farm animals, I beg of you, stop, please stop! Please stop partaking in their suffering. For God’s sake, you can now buy vegan bacon, vegan eggs. You have no excuse.

Stop turning a blind eye. Stop eating the flesh of suffering animals.

To all my fellow activists, I beg of you, do not be afraid! Do not be afraid to stand up and fight for the animals. Do not let society push you into silence. Do not let the animal exploitation industries silence you!”

Some of what Dori witnessed can be seen in this video:

Next door to where Dori spoke, thousands of people visit the famous Myer Christmas windows each year as part of a PR-driven pilgrimage that has continued for generations. On Christmas day, most would tuck gleefully into dead pigs, turkeys and chickens as they celebrate the supposed season of goodwill and peace to all.

Most of those animals would have been raised in facilities similar to the one that Dori spoke about. Many are included in the 38 establishments documented on the Aussiepigs website, along with other Aussie Farms exposés involving chickens, turkeys and ducks.

As just one example of the horrors we allow to be inflicted on animals, it is difficult to imagine that a water bird like a duck can be raised indoors, never seeing or feeling water, except the small amount they are given to drink.

A Contrasting Case: Oliver’s Piggery, Tasmania

The attitude of the police in Dori’s case appears to contrast starkly with that of the 2009 case of Oliver’s Piggery in Tasmania.

Activists Emma Haswell and Diana Simpson had recorded undercover footage from Oliver’s, showing horrific treatment of animals.

Here is some of what journalist, Paul Carter, said about the matter in the Tasmanian Times:

“The three animals over which he was prosecuted were destroyed by a vet soon after police arrived at the property to question Mr Oliver, with Ms Haswell in tow in an official advisory role. The sows were extremely emaciated, unwilling or unable to stand. Two had festering ulcers up to 12cm in diameter, and one of that pair was unable to move because its snout was stuck under the bar of a mesh divider. It could not get to food or water and its wounds were flyblown with adult and juvenile maggots.”

So, like the sow at Springview, a sow at Oliver’s Piggery could not reach food or water, and suffered horrifically in other ways.

After approaching the RSPCA and being told they would take no action, Emma informed police, who were shocked by what they saw and heard. The police visited the premises and laid charges.

Owner and industry veteran, Gary Oliver, pleaded guilty to animal cruelty. He was fined $2,500 and his company $10,000. A director of the company at the time was also on the board of producer-owned peak industry organisation, Australian Pork Limited (APL).

As a sad reflection of slick industry PR, at the time of the investigation, Mr Oliver had been appearing in brochures as one of Woolworths “fresh food people”. The business had been supplying the Woolworths retailing chain for ten years, and at the time of the video was supplying 20 per cent of the fresh pork sold in their Tasmanian supermarkets.

Just three months before their visit, the piggery was inspected by a quality auditor. According to presenter Liam Bartlett in Channel 9’s “60 Minutes” episode “The Hidden Truth“, the auditor gave the piggery “the all-clear”. He says it was only a clerical error by Mr Oliver that prevented the piggery from being accredited by APL at the time of the evening raid.

A Woolworths spokesman has said the company relied on standards, administered by APL, that are supposed to certify producers and maintain quality.

In the article referred to earlier, the Tasmanian Times reported that Magistrate John Myers, after viewing the images of the piggery supplied by the activists, had little sympathy for the farmer’s protests about the activists’ undercover visit. Mr Myers said the activists’ efforts “might well have turned out to be in the public interest”.

Emma Haswell has been rightfully lauded by the media for exposing some of the horrors of routine animal exploitation (exemplified by the words “emma-haswell-hero” on the internet address of the Tasmanian Times article referred to earlier), but Dori Kiss is yet to receive such support.

What About Proposed “Ag-Gag” Legislation?

In Australia and elsewhere, “ag-gag” laws have been introduced or are being proposed in many jurisdictions. The animal advocacy group, Voiceless, describes ag-gag as “variety of laws which seek to hinder or ‘gag’ animal protection advocates by preventing them from recording the operations of commercial agricultural facilities.”

One of the common requirements of ag-gag laws is that any footage obtained must be turned over to enforcement agencies immediately, rather than being given to animal protection groups or the media.

Dori’s reward for informing enforcement agencies in this instance appears to have been to instigate an investigation (including a raid on her home) and have charges laid against her.

In contrast, there have been no convictions against producers in respect of the dozens of establishments exposed by Aussie Farms.

Where do we stand as a society and as individuals?

To the extent that we reward abusers, ignore victims and punish those who expose the truth, how can we claim to live in a civilised society?

As individuals, we can help prevent cruelty in many ways, including informing others of hidden realities, joining animal advocacy campaigns, and refusing to consume animal products.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)

Note

This article first appeared on the website of Melbourne Pig Save on 24th December, 2015 (incorrectly appearing as 4/1/2016).

Image

Australian pig farming at Springview Piggery, Gooloogong, NSW, 2013 | aussiepigs.com

Tags animal cruelty, Animal Rights, Aussie Farms, Factory farming, Free range, Pigs

Categories animal cruelty, Animal Rights

A livestock recap on the road to Paris

November 21, 2015 //

On the final weekend of November, 2015, marches will occur around the world, with participants demanding urgent and effective action on climate change. The organisers of the Australian marches, like so-called world leaders who will meet at the Paris climate summit, are focusing almost exclusively on the impact of fossil fuels. In doing so, they are overlooking or ignoring another critical contributor to climate change, animal agriculture.

This post is a recap of some of the key issues, along with some new information.

What is the problem?

Producing animal-based foods affects the environment in dramatic ways. Here are some examples of prominent organisations and individuals sounding the alarm over many years:

“[Animal food products] place undue demand on land, water, and other resources required for intensive food production, which makes the typical Western diet not only undesirable from the standpoint of health but also environmentally unsustainable.” The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (2002)

“[Livestock production] is one of the major causes of the world’s most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.” The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2006)

“Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth, increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”
United Nations Environment Programme (2010)

“Please eat less meat; meat is a very carbon intensive commodity.” Former head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri (2010)

Livestock’s climate change impacts arise from many inter-related factors, such as its inherent inefficiency as a food source; the massive scale of the industry; land clearing far beyond what would otherwise be required to satisfy our nutritional requirements; greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide; and other warming agents such as black carbon.

Livestock’s impacts are understated

The adverse climate change impact of livestock production is understated in most official figures, because relevant data is either omitted, classified under non-livestock headings, or included on the basis of conservative calculations.

Allowing for the relevant factors, the 2014 Land Use, Agriculture and Forestry discussion paper prepared by Australian climate change advocacy group, Beyond Zero Emissions in conjunction with Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (University of Melbourne), indicated that animal agriculture was responsible for around 50 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The findings were reinforced in a subsequent peer-reviewed journal article, which had two co-authors in common with the BZE paper.

Some key contributors

Methane (CH4) is produced in the digestive system of ruminant animals, such as cows and sheep. In Australia, measured over a 20-year time horizon, methane from livestock produces more warming than all our coal-fired power stations combined. That’s in a country with amongst the highest per capita emissions in the world due to our heavy reliance on coal.

The 20-year time horizon (including its associated “global warming potential”) is critical in terms of potential climate change tipping points, with potentially catastrophic and irreversible consequences. [See footnote.]

Although methane is a critical problem (including methane from livestock-related savanna burning), so are livestock-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, resulting from the clearing of forest and other vegetation. The carbon locked in cleared vegetation is released as CO2. We are hit twice, as once the vegetation is gone, we no longer have the benefit of its ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.

In Australia, nearly a third of our non-arid and semi-arid land has been cleared for livestock production. A large portion of the remainder has been severely degraded by livestock grazing, with significant loss of soil carbon.

According to the World Resources Institute, overgrazing is the largest single cause of land degradation, world-wide. Much of the degradation occurs in the semi-arid areas. Cattle are heavy animals with hard hooves, big appetites, and a digestive system that produces large quantities of manure. Turned loose on fragile, semi-arid environments, they can soon devastate a landscape that has not evolved to cope with them.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is also emitted in great quantities from animal manure and fertiliser used on animal feedcrops, along with livestock-related savanna burning. It is nearly 300 times as potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Two warming agents generally omitted from official figures, and prominent in animal agriculture, are tropospheric ozone and black carbon. They remain in the atmosphere for a short period, but have a significant impact.

The impact of chicken, pig and dairy consumption

Chickens and pigs are not ruminant animals belching significant amounts of methane (although methane and nitrous oxide are emitted from their excrement). However, we are sitting on a climate change precipice while continuing to destroy the Amazon rainforest and occupy previously cleared land in order to grow soy beans (and graze cattle).

A significant proportion of those soy beans are fed to billions of chickens and pigs in a grossly inefficient process. Cows in the dairy industry are also major recipients.

Seafood’s impacts

Like chickens and pigs, fish and other sea creatures do not belch methane, and they do not require us to destroy massive areas of rainforest for grazing (although they are fed soy meal in fish farms).

The oceans cover 71 percent of our planet’s surface. They are home to complex ecosystems that are being disturbed by industrial and non-industrial (including recreational) fishing in ways that may profoundly affect our climate system.

A recent paper in Nature Climate Change has helped to highlight some of impact. The problem arises largely from the fact that fishing disturbs food webs, changing the way ecosystems function, and altering the ecological balance of the oceans in dangerous ways. The paper focused on the phenomenon of “trophic downgrading”, the disproportionate loss of species high in the food chain, and its impact on vegetated coastal habitats consisting of seagrass meadows, mangroves and salt marshes.

The loss of predators such as large carnivorous fish, sharks, crabs, lobsters, seals and sea lions, and the corresponding population increase of herbivores and bioturbators (creatures who disturb ocean sediment, including certain crabs) causes loss of carbon from the vegetation and sediment.

Those habitats are estimated to store up to 25 billion tonnes of carbon, making them the most carbon-rich ecosystems in the world. They sequester carbon 40 times faster than tropical rainforests and contribute 50 per cent of the total carbon buried in ocean sediment.

Will we grasp a golden opportunity?

A 2009 study by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency estimated that a global transition to a completely animal free diet would reduce climate change mitigation costs by around 80 per cent. A meat-free diet would reduce them by 70 per cent.

Will we grasp the opportunity that those figures represent, or continue to effectively ignore the issue?

The failure of prominent environmental groups

Prominent organisations, such as Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC), Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), the Greens political party in Australia, and 350.org, have failed to campaign meaningfully, if at all, on the livestock issue.

ACF advocates consumption of “grass fed as opposed to grain fed meat”, seemingly unaware that the emissions intensity of grass-fed is far higher than that of the grain-fed alternative (with both being on a different paradigm to plant-based foods). Bill McKibben of 350.org has made similar claims, with neither citing evidence for their position to my knowledge. Despite what they may wish to believe, the natural way is not always best in every respect.

AYCC describes itself as “a real force to be reckoned with”, but has failed miserably on this topic.

Hopefully, those groups and others will add the livestock issue to their campaigning efforts, helping to inform their supporters and significantly enhancing their effectiveness.

Social Justice

Environmental groups in Australia are using the catch-cry “Climate justice, climate peace” in the weeks before the Paris climate summit. It may have merit, but to the extent campaigners consume animal-based foods, they ignore the injustice of livestock production.

For example, researchers from the University of Minnesota have estimated that we would have the capacity to feed another 4 billion people with a general transition to a plant-based diet. That would enable us to resolve the current crisis that exists in the form of nearly 800 million people who are chronically under-nourished.

Of course, with livestock’s massive climate change impacts, ignoring the issue flies directly in the face of the message of climate justice and peace intended to be conveyed by the campaigners.

Personal choice?

Many people argue that food consumption is a matter of personal choice, and that their choices should not be challenged by others. However, we can no longer regard food choices as strictly personal when their impacts have far-reaching, adverse consequences.

Governments could assist with information campaigns, and by creating pricing mechanisms that ensure the environmental cost of consumption is allowed for in the price paid by the end-user, thereby reducing demand for high emissions intensity products, along with the resultant supply.

Conclusion

The road to Paris may have been difficult so far, but the way forward, with potential tipping points and runaway climate change, could be very ugly indeed. It is time to wake up, face the ultimate inconvenient truth, and take all necessary steps in an effort to avoid catastrophe.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, Slideshare, New Matilda, Rabble and Viva la Vegan)

Footnote

For more on the “global warming potential” of different greenhouse gases, see GWP explained.

Even in the absence of clear tipping points, climate feedback mechanisms create accelerating, non-linear changes, which are potentially irreversible.

References

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization, “Human Vitamin and Mineral Requirements: Report of a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation Bangkok, Thailand”, 2001, pp. 14, ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y2809e/y2809e00.pdf and http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y2809E/y2809e08.htm

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Livestock impacts on the environment”, Spotlight 2006, November 2006

UNEP (2010) Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials, A Report of the Working Group on the Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management. Hertwich, E., van der Voet, E., Suh, S., Tukker, A., Huijbregts M., Kazmierczyk, P., Lenzen, M., McNeely, J., Moriguchi, Y.

Agence France-Presse, “Lifestyle changes can curb climate change: IPCC chief”, 15 January, 2010, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIVBkZpOUA9Hz3Xc2u-61mDlrw0Q

Beyond Zero Emissions and Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute of The University of Melbourne, “Zero Carbon Australia – Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry – Discussion Paper”, October, 2014, http://bze.org.au/landuse

Wedderburn-Bisshop, G., Longmire, A., Rickards, L., “Neglected Transformational Responses: Implications of Excluding Short Lived Emissions and Near Term Projections in Greenhouse Gas Accounting”, International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2015, pp.11-27. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Published Online: August 17, 2015, http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.269

Mahony, P., “The Electric Cow”, Terrastendo, 27th May, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/05/27/the-electric-cow/

Russell, G., “Bulbs, bags, and Kelly’s bush: defining ‘green’ in Australia”, 19 Mar 2010 (p. 10) (http://hec-forum.anu.edu.au/archive/presentations_archive/2010/geoffrussell-hec-talk.pdf), which utilised: Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, State of the Environment Report 2006, Indicator: LD-01 The proportion and area of native vegetation and changes over time, March 2009; and ABS, 4613.0 “Australia’s Environment: Issues and Trends”, Jan 2010; and ABS 1301.0 Australian Year Book 2008, since updated for 2009-10, 16.13 Area of crops

Australian Bureau of Statistics, “Themes – Environment, Land and Soil, Agriculture”, citing World Resources Institute, World Resources, 1998-99: A Guide to the Global Environment, Washington, DC, 1998, p. 157, cited in “The Ethics of What We Eat” (2006), Singer, P & Mason, J, Text Publishing Company, p. 216

Mahony, P., “Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point”, Terrastendo, 5th October, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/10/05/chickens-pigs-and-the-amazon-tipping-point/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Ocean” (undated), http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html

Atwood, T.B., Connolly, R.M., Ritchie, E.G., Lovelock, C.E., Heithaus, M.R., Hays, G.C., Fourqurean, J.W., Macreadie, P.I., “Predators help protect carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems”, published online 28 September 2015, http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2763.html

Macreadie, P., Ritchie, E., Hays, G., Connolly, R., Atwood, T.B., “Ocean predators can help reset our planet’s thermostat”, The Conversation, 29th September, 2015, https://theconversation.com/ocean-predators-can-help-reset-our-planets-thermostat-47937

Stehfest, E, Bouwman, L, van Vuuren, DP, den Elzen, MGJ, Eickhout, B and Kabat, P, “Climate benefits of changing diet” Climatic Change, Volume 95, Numbers 1-2 (2009), 83-102, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6 (Also http://www.springerlink.com/content/053gx71816jq2648/)

Australian Conservation Foundation, “Meat Free Week: eat less, care more, feel good”, 17th March, 2014, http://www.acfonline.org.au/news-media/news-features/meat-free-week-eat-less-care-more-feel-good

Mahony, P., “The real elephant in AYCC’s climate change room”, Terrastendo, 5th September, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/09/05/the-real-elephant-in-ayccs-climate-change-room/

Mahony, P. “Do the math: There are too many cows!”, Terrastendo, 26th July, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/07/26/do-the-math-there-are-too-many-cows/

Harper, L.A., Denmead, O.T., Freney, J.R., and Byers, F.M., Journal of Animal Science, June, 1999, “Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle”, J ANIM SCI, 1999, 77:1392-1401, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10375217; http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/77/6/1392.full.pdf

Eshel, G., “Grass-fed beef packs a punch to environment”, Reuters Environment Forum, 8 Apr 2010, http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014”, http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2014/en/

Image

Paris Climate Change Conference 2015 Photo © Delstudio | Dreamstime.com

Tags animal agriculture, chickens, climate, climate change, environment, livestock, Pigs, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment, Uncategorized

Chickens, pigs and the Amazon tipping point

October 5, 2015 //

iStock_000007740596Small_500_335

Our climate is subject to many potential tipping points, where a small change in human activity can lead to abrupt and significant changes in earth systems, with catastrophic and irreversible impacts. Feedback mechanisms that form part of the process could lead to runaway climate change over which we will have little or no control.

Possible tipping points include [1]:

reduction in area and volume of Arctic sea ice;
disintegration of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;
thawing permafrost (frozen soil) releasing methane and carbon dioxide;
melting sub-sea hydrates also releasing methane;
dieback of the Amazon rainforest.

This post considers the Amazon rainforest.

Although clearing for cattle pastures is the main driver of Amazon deforestation, feed production for the beef, poultry, pig meat and other sectors is also a critical factor.

A new perspective based on potential consequences

The comparative emissions intensity of various food products is often considered when reviewing their climate change impacts. Emissions intensity is a measure of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product, typically measured by weight. The emissions intensity of meat from ruminant animals, such as cows and sheep, is extremely high relative to most other food sources. Two key reasons are: methane emissions from the process of enteric fermentation in the animals’ digestive systems, releasing methane; and land clearing for pasture, releasing carbon dioxide.

Although the emissions intensity figures of chicken and pig meat are multiples of most plant-based products, they represent a small fraction of beef’s figure. Accordingly, chicken and pig meat have generally received less attention than beef in the context of climate change.

However, we are poised on the edge of a climate change precipice, where a relatively small step can mean disaster. [2] Feed production for the chicken and pig meat industries has the potential to be that step, with reduced consumption potentially being an essential measure in our efforts to overcome climate change. When there is little or no buffer for avoiding catastrophe, all methods of doing so must be addressed.

What is the problem with feed crops?

It could be argued that any agricultural plantation in the Amazon basin and elsewhere represents an environmental problem. That’s true, but the problem is magnified in regard to animal feed, due to the gross and inherent inefficiency of animals as a food source. The inefficiency is demonstrated by comparative feed conversion ratios of various livestock production systems, as shown in Figure 1. The researchers determined the figures by analysing between twenty-nine and eighty-three studies per item. [3]

Figure 1: Feed conversion ratios (kg feed protein required per kg of animal protein produced)

The inverse figures show relative efficiency of animal-based food production systems in converting plant-based feed proteins.

Figure 2: Feed protein conversion efficiency of livestock production systems

The inefficiencies mean that we require far more land and other resources than would be required if we utilised plant-based sources directly for our nutritional requirements. Although a cow raised for meat will generally eat far more grass than grain, the problem of extensive land use remains, with forests cleared for pasture, natural grasslands degraded, and carbon released from soil through erosion.

The Amazon tipping point

Even without land clearing for agriculture and other purposes, due to a persistent El Nino state leading to drying over much of the Amazon basin, its rainforest is predicted to die if temperatures reach 3°C -4°C above pre-industrial levels. In its natural state, much of the precipitation in the Amazon is recycled, but such recycling would reduce significantly at that temperature range, contributing to the permanent loss of rainforest. [4]

Does this mean we can save the Amazon rainforest if we keep temperatures below that range?

Not necessarily. Quite apart from a general increase in temperatures and the fact that levels below 2°C could trigger feedbacks leading to higher temperatures, we are pushing the rainforest toward a critical tipping point, largely arising from excessive fragmentation. Such fragmentation can lead to general drying and an increased propensity for fires and other causes of loss. Studies published in late 2014 and early 2015 documented the extremely adverse long-term effects of forest fragmentation, including carbon losses far in excess of what was previously believed. Much of the fragmentation arises from agriculture, including livestock feed crops. [5] [6]

Growth in livestock and related feed crop production

More than 85 percent of global soybean production is used in livestock feed. The figures for wheat are 20 percent, and corn 50 percent. [7]

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is predicting an increase of 64 percent in global meat consumption between 2010 and 2050, with chicken and pig meat leading the way. [8]

Much of the increase is coming from China, which produces 50 percent of the world’s pig meat (from a pig population of 482 million), and 20 percent of poultry meat (primarily from a chicken population of 4.835 billion).

The projected increases maintain the trends of the past twenty years, as shown in Figure 3, and the increase in soybean production shown in Figure 4. [9] Global soy production has grown tenfold in the past fifty years, and has been instrumental in enabling low cost meat and dairy production. [10]

Figure 3: Global chicken and pig meat production 1993-2013 (kilotonnes)

Figure 4: Global soy bean production 1993-2013 (kilotonnes)

Brazil’s share of global soybean production increased from 22.6 percent in 1994/95 (equal to 43 percent of USA production) to 31.6 percent in 2012/13 (on par with USA at around 82 million tonnes). Its production more than tripled in that time, while global production more than doubled. [11]

China liberalised its soy imports in the mid-1990s, and by 2005 was importing half the world’s traded soybeans, with rapid acceleration since then. Figure 5 depicts growth in imports for part of that period. [12]

Figure 5: Soybean Production, Consumption and Imports in China 1964-2011

Two-thirds of the demand for Brazilian soy comes from China and the European Union. [13] In May, 2014, the United States Department of Agriculture was estimating that China’s soy bean imports for 2014/15 would be 72 million tonnes. The second-ranked importer was the European Union, with 12.5 million tonnes. With domestic production of 12 million tonnes, China’s total consumption was 84 million tonnes, up from approximately 70 million tonnes in 2011 (including imports of 59 million tonnes that year). [14]

The problem is exacerbated by the relatively high proportion of soybean meal in Chinese pig feed (estimated at 20-30 percent) and chicken feed (25-40 percent). [15]

There are signs that China may also liberalise corn imports, rather than maintaining its historic target of 95 percent self-sufficiency. In 2011, Morgan Stanley estimated that around 70 percent of the country’s corn production was used in animal feed, 5 percent in food for the human population, and the balance for industrial purposes. [16] The crop is far more water and nutrient intensive than soy, so any expansion of imports could have major implications for producing nations, including Brazil. [17]

The Amazon soy moratorium and other measures are failing

In 2006, various producers commenced a soy moratorium, whereby they committed to avoid trading soy from areas within the Amazon that had been cleared after 24th June that year. Brazil’s Ministry of the Environment joined the moratorium in 2009, and it has been endorsed by major retailers. Safeguards are supposedly strengthened by the fact that Brazil also has strong logging regulations, and requires large land owners in the Amazon to maintain at least 50 percent of their holdings in native forest.

The moratorium is due to expire in May, 2016, by which time the industry argues that Brazil’s environmental governance will be robust enough to justify concluding it. [18] However, there is strong evidence to the contrary, including a recent doubling in the rate of deforestation.

Here are some of the problems described by journalist Richard Schiffman after consulting with (amongst others) Dr Philip Fearnside, a Research Professor in the Department of Ecology at Brazil’s National Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA) [19], [20]:

There is a lack of enforcement and a climate of impunity. For example, only around 1 percent of fines imposed by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) are collected. The agency is under-funded and under-staffed.
The practice of timber laundering is widespread, whereby trees are illegally harvested and given clean documentation to facilitate their sale.
There is a high degree of legal ambiguity in land title, which assists illegal deforestation operators seeking to avoid detection.
Farmers routinely remove rainforest in order to plant crops such as rice and corn (which are not subject to the moratorium) for a short period, and then gradually change to soy.
President Dilma Rousseff, despite pledging zero tolerance for deforestation, has aligned herself with the so-called ruralistic bloc, a coalition of wealthy farmers and agribusiness organisations that helped re-write land-use laws in their own favour.
Rousseff appointed Katia Abreu, a former rancher and head of Brazil’s Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock, as minister for agriculture. Abreu has been nick-named the “chain saw queen” by environmentalists. She has complained that environmentalists and the indigenous population have been thwarting progress.
Rousseff has also appointed Aldo Rebelo as the minister for science. He has said that talk of global warming is “scientism”, not science. He claims it is a tool used by Western imperialists to control poor nations.
The Forest Code was introduced in 2012, which removed crucial aspects of rainforest protection and provided an amnesty for those who violated environmental laws prior to 2008. There is now an expectation of future amnesties for others who clear illegally.
A new highway is planned to run from the city of Manaus through the heart of the Amazon to the so-called “arc of deforestation” in the south, which has been largely cleared for soy plantations. Roads provide access and act as a catalyst for further deforestation.
The eventual completion of dozens of new dams (which represent a significant problem in their own right) and the Sao Luiz do Tapajos hydroelectric project will result in unemployed construction workers settling in the hinterland and clearing rainforest for farms.

The problems are exacerbated by warming conditions arising from El Nino and the Atlantic Dipole.

El Nino leads to drying, mainly in the northern Amazon, and greatly increases the likelihood of forest fires, as occurred in 1982, 1997 and 2006, compared to only four major fires in the previous 2,000 years. El Nino conditions have again been developing during 2015. [21]

Whereas El Nino is caused by surface water warming in the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Dipole is a warm area of water in the North Atlantic, affecting south-western areas of the Amazon, including droughts in those areas in 2005 and 2010.

Globally, according to a 2015 study by researchers based at the University of Maryland, the rate of tropical deforestation increased by 62 percent between the decades 1990-2000 and 2000-2010. The findings challenge a 2010 estimate from the FAO, which relied on self-reporting by relevant governments. The new estimate is based on Landsat satellite image data. It indicates that the largest increase occurred in tropical Latin America, with most clearing occurring in Brazil. [22]

The trend has continued, with Brazil’s rate of tree cover loss increasing by more than 16 percent between 2013 and 2014. [23]

Consumption in all countries contributes to the Amazon problem

Although China’s livestock sector is the major global consumer of traded soy products, consumption in any country contributes to the problem. In a country such as Australia, around 90 percent of the soy that is consumed is imported, mainly for intensive livestock feed. [24] The trade is global, and any demand pressure contributes to an increase in overall supply. Conversely, reduced demand from one country may reduce production in any other country, including those not holding the initial supply contract. The reason is that production capacity may be freed in the initial supplier nation, enhancing its ability to compete for alternative markets that are being supplied by competitor nations.

Accordingly, to the extent that livestock producers in a country such as Australia import soybeans from any nation, reduced Australian consumption can reduce soybean production in the Amazon. Reduced consumption of locally-produced soybeans by North American livestock producers can have the same effect.

China may be willing to act

China has recently announced major initiatives in dealing with fossil fuel emissions, and it has much to lose if other necessary mitigation measures are not adopted. Climate change author, David Spratt, has stated [25]:

“Taken together with those on the neighbouring Tibetan plateau, the Himalayan-Hindu Kush glaciers represent the largest body of ice on the planet outside the polar regions, feeding Asia’s great river systems, including the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Huang He. The basins of these rivers are home to over a billion people from Pakistan to China. . . . In China, 23 per cent of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt provides the principal dry season water source. The implications of the loss of the Himalayan ice sheet are global and mind numbing, but such a calamity rarely rates a mention in Australia.”

Faced with this frightening reality, Chinese authorities may accept that a continued increase in the rate of meat consumption, with its adverse climate change impacts, will be extremely detrimental to the nation’s future.

Conclusion

Although this article has focused primarily on chicken products and pig meat, the problem is also relevant to the extent that soybean meal is used in other agricultural products, such as beef, dairy products, and farmed fish. All involve other serious environmental problems that are exacerbated by the inefficiencies and related scale of production involved.

By any measure of sound economic or environmental management, such inefficiencies should not be perpetuated, yet a collective blind spot seems to apply in respect of animal agriculture. It is time to face the reality of our dire predicament in relation to climate change, and accept the need for urgent, meaningful action.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

Footnote

Even in the absence of clear tipping points, climate feedback mechanisms create accelerating, non-linear changes, which are potentially irreversible.

Sources

[1] Lenton, T.M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J.W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., Schellnhuber, H.J., “Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system“, PNAS 2008 105 (6) 1786-1793; published ahead of print February 7, 2008, doi:10.1073/pnas.0705414105, http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full

[2] Mahony, P. “On the edge of a climate change precipice“, Terrastendo, 3rd March, 2015, https://terrastendo.net/2015/03/03/on-the-edge-of-a-climate-change-precipice/

[3] Tilman, D., Clark, M., “Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health”, Nature515, 518–522 (27 November 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13959, Extended Data Table 7 “Protein conversion ratios of livestock production systems”, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html#t7

[4] Lenton, T.M. et al., op cit.

[5] Pütz, S., Groeneveld, J., Henle, K., Knogge, C., Martensen, A.C., Metz, M., Metzger, J.P., Ribeiro, M.C., de Paula, M. D., M. & Andreas Huth, A., “Long-term carbon loss in fragmented Neotropical forests”, Nature Communications 5:5037 doi: 10.1038/ncomms6037 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6037, cited in Hance, J., “Forest fragmentation’s carbon bomb: 736 million tonnes C02 annually”, Mongabay, 9th October, 2014, http://news.mongabay.com/2014/10/forest-fragmentations-carbon-bomb-736-million-tonnes-c02-annually/

[6] Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R.D., Lovejoy, T.E., Sexton, J.O., Austin, M.P., Collins, C.D., Cook, W.M., Damschen, E.I., Ewers, R.M., Foster, B.L., Jenkins, C.N., King, A.J., Laurance, W.F., Levey, D.J., Margules, C.R., Melbourne, B.A., Nicholls, A.O., Orrock, J.L., Song, D-X., and Townshend, J.R., “Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems”, Science Advances, 20 Mar 2015: Vol. 1, no. 2, e1500052 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500052, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/2/e1500052.full, cited in Bell., L., “World’s fragmented forests are deteriorating”, Mongabay, 24th March, 2015, http://news.mongabay.com/2015/03/worlds-fragmented-forests-are-deteriorating/

[7] Sharma, S., “The need for feed: China’s demand for industrialised meat and its impacts”, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, February, 2014, p.13, http://www.iatp.org/documents/the-need-for-feed-china%E2%80%99s-demand-for-industrialized-meat-and-its-impacts

[8] Sharma, S., ibid., p. 14

[9] FAOSTAT, Livestock Primary and Crops Processed, http://faostat3.fao.org

[10] World Wildlife Fund, “Soy report card: Assessing the use of responsible soy for animal feed in Europe”, May, 2014, http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1568593/sojarapporten-2014.pdf

[11] McFarlane, I. and O’Connor, E.A., “World soybean trade: growth and sustainability”, Modern Economy, 2014, 5, 580-588, Published Online May 2014 in SciRes, Table 1, p. 582, http://www.scirp.org/journal/me, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/me.2014.55054

[12] Brown, L.R., “Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity, Chapter 9, China and the Soybean Challenge”, Earth Policy Institute, 6 November, 2013, http://www.earthpolicy.org/books/fpep/fpepch9

[13] Spanne, A., “Global meat demand plows up Brazil’s ‘underground forest'”, The Daily Climate, 10th November, 2014, http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2014/11/brazil-meat-cerrado-deforestation

[14] United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service Approved by the World Agricultural Outlook Board/USDA Circular Series, “Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade”, May 2014, http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/oilseeds.pdf

[15] Sharma, op cit., p. 17

[16] Sharma, op cit., p. 18

[18] Gibbs, H.K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D.C., Noojipady, P., Soares-Filho, B., Bareto, P., Micol, L., Walker, N.F., “Brazil’s Soy Moratorium”, Science, 23rd January, 2015, Vol. 347 no. 6220 pp. 377-378 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0181, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6220/377

[19] Schiffman, R., “What Lies Behind the Recent Surge of Amazon Deforestation”, Yale Environment 360, 9th March, 2015, http://e360.yale.edu/feature/what_lies_behind_the_recent_surge_of_amazon_deforestation/2854/

[20] Schiffman, R., “Brazil’s Deforestation Rates Are on the Rise Again”, Newsweek, 22nd March, 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/brazils-deforestation-rates-are-rise-again-315648.html

[21] Timms, P., “‘Godzilla El Nino’ intensifying: Drought, heatwaves and heightened bushfire risk expected this summer”, ABC News, 5th October, 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-05/extreme-el-nino-system-intensifying3a-drought-and-heightened-f/6828772

[22] Kim, D.-H., J. O. Sexton, and J. R. Townshend (2015), “Accelerated deforestation in the humid tropics from the 1990s to the 2000s”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 3495–3501. doi: 10.1002/2014GL062777, cited in American Geophysical Union, “Felling of tropical trees has soared, satellite shows, not slowed as UN study found”, 25th February, 2015, http://news.agu.org/press-release/felling-of-tropical-trees-has-soared-satellite-shows-not-slowed-as-un-study-found/

[23] Weisse, M. and Petersen, R. “Brazil and Indonesia struggling to reduce deforestation”, Global Forest Watch, 3rd September, 2015, http://blog.globalforestwatch.org/2015/09/brazil-and-indonesia-struggling-to-reduce-deforestation/#more-2641 and World Resources Institute, 3rd September, 2015, http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/09/brazil-and-indonesia-struggling-reduce-deforestation

[24] Spragg, J., “Feed Grain Supply & Demand Report 2013-14: A report for the Feed Grain Partnership”, July 2014, https://www.aecl.org/assets/www.aecl.org/outputs/140730-FGP-Supply-and-Demand-Report-July-2014.pdf

[25] Spratt, D.,“Global Warming – No more business as usual: This is an emergency!”, Environmental Activists’ Conference 2008: Climate Emergency – No More Business as Usual, reproduced in Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, 10 October, 2008, http://links.org.au/node/683

Images

Main image: Aerial view of Amazon deforestation in Brazil © Phototreat | iStock.

Figure 5: Brown, L.R., op cit.

Tags climate, climate change, environment, livestock, Pigs

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Animal rights: Power v. Justice

August 1, 2015 //

Imagine I’m standing with you outside a shed full of animals.

I intend to go inside, select an animal, and mutilate him.

I have implements specifically designed for the task.

I will not apply anaesthetic or other forms of pain relief.

I will:

castrate him;
cut off his tail;
remove large pieces from his ears;
clip his teeth close to the gum line.

As we stand there, you might argue with me, or plead with me not to proceed.

I ignore you, and as I walk toward the building, you might scream at me, saying I’m insane.

I enter the building and select one of the hundreds of piglets inside.

I have almost complete power over him.

Physically, he is only a few days old, and weighs around 2 kg.

He will struggle and squeal as I cut away pieces of his body, but there is nothing he can do.

His mother is confined to a cage, and cannot help him.

His father is permanently locked away, his semen extracted through sexual stimulation by a human, and used to impregnate sow after sow, who are also stimulated by a human.

Once I’ve completed my tasks, the piglet will remain in the shed, day and night, for the rest of his short life.

His mother and father will also stay there, in a world of steel, concrete and filth, until they can no longer produce piglets.

Their first view of sunshine will be the day they are sent to the slaughterhouse.

Legally, I am fully entitled to do what I’m doing.

Because of exemptions in favour of livestock industries, the so-called “prevention of cruelty to animals” legislation says it’s perfectly acceptable.

By its food choices, society condones my actions.

But do individual members of society know that this is part of the deal?

We condemn cruel acts against companion animals.

We condemn domestic violence.

But we ignore acts of atrocity routinely committed against other vulnerable beings, like this piglet, his parents and siblings.

Where is the justice?

There is virtually none when it comes to “production” animals.

Activists who try to convey reality rather than industry PR, are condemned by industry participants and politicians.

A new bill is being considered by Australia’s federal parliament which, if passed, would introduce onerous penalties, and require whistleblowers to immediately hand over evidence to authorities, rather than showing the community directly. In the USA, animal activists are subject to anti-terrorism legislation.

With few exceptions, the relevant authorities have allowed the acts of atrocity to continue, so why should we expect things to change if activists are forced to hand over information?

Today’s undercover animal activists can be compared to those who fought injustices in the past.

Was Martin Luther King, Jr. wrong?

Was Mohandas Gandhi wrong?

Was Rosa Parks, the African American who dared to sit at the front of the bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, wrong?

John Durkan is chief executive officer of Australian supermarket monolith, Coles. During his period as merchandise director, he said:

“[Our customers] want to know . . . that there is no cruelty to animals, that they’re treated well.”

So why does Coles condone most of the types of cruelty that I’ve mentioned (including farrowing crates as a type of cage), while gaining market leverage by proclaiming that its home brand fresh pork, and local and imported ham and bacon products, are “sow stall free”? (The stalls can still be used for up to 24 hours per pregnancy, and can therefore remain on the premises.)

Coles is not alone, as other supermarkets and retailers also allow such cruelty.

You have the power to act.

You can prevent these horrendous acts of cruelty committed against vulnerable beings.

You can help make history.

Avoid buying products made from the bodies and excretions of animals. The life of any “unit of production” can hardly be a life worth living.

Do what Coles CEO, John Durkan, should expect you to do, and ensure “there is no cruelty to animals, that they are treated well”.

His business, and other retailers, can adapt by supplying products that are genuinely cruelty-free in response to consumer demand.

YOU HAVE THE POWER, PLEASE USE IT!

Author:

Paul Mahony

Notes:

The opening scenario assumes I’m employed by a piggery.
Castration of piglets, while permitted, does not occur as routinely in Australia as in some other countries.
A voluntary, so-called “phase out” of sow stalls by industry body Australian Pork Ltd, has severe limitations, including the fact that their use would only be reduced, rather than being phased out altogether. In any event, the alternative of indoor group housing is also horrendously cruel. Farrowing crates, an even more restrictive type of cage for mothers, in which they are confined day and night for up to six weeks, will continue.
The big picture: We have almost complete power over other animals. However, we abuse that power by forcing billions to be “production” animals who are almost completely denied justice.
This article first appeared on the website of Melbourne Pig Save on 1st August, 2015.

Videos:

“Do you want to make history” (The Vegan Society, 2012):

“Lucent” (Trailer, 2014):

“Lucent” (Full film, 2014):

Source material:

Mahony, P. “When does ‘cruel’ not mean cruel?”, Terrastendo, 31st August, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/08/31/when-does-cruel-not-mean-cruel/

Mahony, P., “Ag-gag: when a gag is not a joke”, Terrastendo, 15th July, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/07/15/ag-gag-when-a-gag-is-not-a-joke/

Potter, W., “The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the Criminalization of Dissent”, Green is the New Red, 18th September, 2014, http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/animal-enterprise-terrorism-act-book/8033/

Voiceless, “Animal Law in the Spotlight: Sow Confinement Bill 2015”, 29th June, 2015, https://www.voiceless.org.au/content/animal-law-spotlight-sow-confinement-bill-2015

Timoshanko, A. and Kyriakakis, J., “It will take a ban on caging pigs to clean up the pork industry”, The Conversation, 28th July, 2015, https://theconversation.com/it-will-take-a-ban-on-caging-pigs-to-clean-up-the-pork-industry-44701

The Vegan Society, “Do you want to make history?” (video), 10th May, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ehL18rqlM

“Lucent” (Documentary, 2014), written, produced and directed by Chris Delforce, http://www.aussiepigs.com/lucent

Main image:

Courtesy Aussie Farms, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/korunye-park/photos

Tags animal cruelty, Aussie Farms, Pigs

Categories Animal Rights

Grong Grong Horror

March 15, 2015 //

So, it took an anonymous whistleblower to tell the world that 500 pigs died two weeks earlier from heat stress when an air cooling system failed at Grong Grong Piggery in New South Wales, Australia. [1]

The CEO of the company that owns the piggery subsequently said:

The welfare of our animals is our highest priority at all times

Sure, sure, higher than earning profits.

He also said:

Losses like this cut deep emotionally for all staff.

But only after he had said:

These animals are their livelihoods and they care for them every day.

So, they care for them every day because they are their livelihood?

Besides, how well do they really care for them?

Here’s what animal rights group Aussie Farms has reported in respect of this piggery [2]:

The piggery features the largest sow stall shed we’ve ever received footage from, with 8 rows of tiny metal cages stretching far into the distance, confining hundreds and hundreds of pregnant sows for up to 16 weeks at a time.

Several piglets were found in pieces – some in the farrowing crates, some in the aisles of the farrowing crates, and some outside. One piglet had been ripped in half with his legs nearby. Another piglet’s head was found in the aisle near his legs. The back half of a piglet was found in a farrowing crate. Several buckets of dead piglets were found inside and outside the farrowing sheds. It is unclear what is causing the pigs to be severed into pieces and scattered throughout the facility – most likely a combination of cannibalism and worker mistreatment.

Trolleys full of rotting piglet tails were found in the farrowing crate sheds.

Many sows were found with pressure sores and other injuries.

Of course, the producer-owned organisation that administers the quality audit program (including animal welfare), Australian Pork Ltd, defended the producer in respect of Aussie Farms’ revelations. [3]

What hope do the pigs have?

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

References

[1] Pearson, A. and Jacobs, S., “500 pigs die from heat stress at NSW piggery”, Sydney Morning Herald, 13th March, 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/500-pigs-die-from-heat-stress-at-nsw-piggery-20150313-143j4l.html

[2] Aussie Farms, “Grong Grong Piggery”, May 2014, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/grong-grong

[3] Pearson, A. and Jacobs, S., op cit.

Image

Aussie Farms

Note

This article first appeared on the website of Melbourne Pig Save on 14th March, 2015.

Tags Animal Rights, Aussie Farms, Factory farming, livestock, Pigs

Categories Animal Rights

Western Australian Pig Cruelty

November 2, 2014 //

Aussie Farms is an animal rights group exposing the cruel reality of pig farming in Australia. They go far behind the veneer of “feel good” advertising campaigns such as those of major supermarket chain, Coles, featuring celebrity chef, Curtis Stone. (See “Pig Cruelty with Curtis and Coles“. [1])

A recent exposé of Aussie Farms (its thirty-second overall, and the first in Western Australia) was said by the group to be of the Narrogin Piggery, owned by Craig Mostyn Farms, which is a division of Craig Mostyn Group. [2] The company has an impressive list of directors and executives, and its CEO, David Lock, was named Agribusiness Leader of the Year in the 2012 NAB Agribusiness Awards for Excellence. [3]

On the “Policies and Regulations” page of Craig Mostyn’s website, the following comments appear under the heading “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals” [4]:

Each state has legislation aimed at protecting the welfare of animals. In Western Australia, Craig Mostyn operates under the Animal Welfare Act 2002, which prohibits an act of cruelty on an animal. It also requires that a person in charge of an animal exercise reasonable care to prevent such acts occurring.

Section 19(1) of the Act, part of the “Cruelty to animals” section, simply says (in addition to specifying the relevant penalties), “A person must not be cruel to an animal”.

Something Craig Mostyn has omitted from its statement is the fact that the Animal Welfare Act contains the following exemption (Section 25, “Defence – code of practice”):

It is a defence to a charge under section 19(1) for a person to prove that the person was acting in accordance with a relevant code of practice.

The relevant code in this case is the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition).

Which practices are exempt, based on the fact that they are permitted under the code?

Here are some examples:

life-long confinement indoors;
confinement in a sow stall, with insufficient room to turn around, for up to 16.5 weeks, day and night;
confinement in a farrowing crate, with insufficient room to turn around or interact with piglets, for up to 6 weeks, day and night;
tail docking without anaesthetic;
ear notching without anaesthetic;
teeth clipping without anaesthetic;
castration without anaesthetic.

However, part 4.5.1 of the code states:

Faeces and urine must not be permitted to accumulate to the stage where there is no clean area for pigs to lie down.

It seems that the code may have been interpreted rather loosely in this instance. That’s because the pigs in the images shown here appear to have been forced to live in their own excrement. In nature, pigs are clean animals, who avoid defecating or urinating where they sleep. They roll in mud or muddy water in order to cool down in hot weather, and to remove parasites.

The standards shown in the images are inconsistent with the following statement from Craig Mostyn’s website (with my underline).

Operating under the Linley Valley Pork brand, Craig Mostyn is the largest pork supplier in Western Australia servicing the domestic and export markets. Our pigs are grown under industry best practice, with the highest standard of animal welfare.

Some other points to consider

The company’s free range brand was the first in Australia to be accredited under the RSPCA’s “paw of approval” program. The Age newspaper has reported that the RSPCA earns a royalty equal to 2 percent of sales in relation to such accreditations. [5] Major problems have been exposed with other brands accredited by the RSPCA on the “Free Range Fraud” website of Animal Liberation Victoria. [6]
It’s Nambeelup piggery was allegedly exposed by Aussie Farms soon after Narrogin. Aussie Farms stated, “as is typical in many Australian pig farms, sows are confined to small cages on hard metal floors for weeks at a time, with their dead piglets left nearby”. [7]
Aussie Farms has reported that Craig Mostyn is a part-owner of Linley Valley Abattoir, a large pig slaughterhouse in Western Australia that kills around 500,000 pigs per year. [8] It stuns pigs in a carbon dioxide chamber, which has been shown to be excruciatingly painful, despite industry claims to the contrary. (See “When does ‘cruel’ not mean ‘cruel’?“) [9]
The company is a major supplier to Coles. If some of Coles’ so-called “sow stall free” pork is supplied from the Narrogin piggery, and conditions are as bad as indicated here, then one needs to ask what benefits are being achieved for pigs.
It also supplies Woolworths “Select” brand products.

Conclusion

No matter how reputable the livestock industry participant appears to be, the only way for consumers to ensure they are not contributing to cruelty is to avoid consuming animal products.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

References

[1] Mahony, P., “Pig cruelty with Curtis and Coles”, Terrastendo, 13th January, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/01/13/pig-cruelty-with-curtis-and-coles/

[2] Aussie Farms, “Narrogin Piggery”, October, 2014, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/narrogin

[3] NAB Business Research and Insights, 12th March, 2013, “A transformation success story – Craig Mostyn”, http://business.nab.com.au/a-transformation-success-story-craig-mostyn-2951/

[4] Craig Mostyn Group, “Policies and Regulations”, http://www.craigmostyn.com.au/about/policies-and-regulation/

[5] Smith, A., “RSPCA stamp ‘dupes buyers'”, The Age, 9th January, 2012, http://www.theage.com.au/business/rspca-stamp-dupes-buyers-20120108-1pq6z.html

[6] Animal Liberation Victoria, “Free Range Fraud”, http://freerangefraud.com/

[7] Aussie Farms, “Nambeelup Piggery”, October, 2014, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/nambeelup

[8] Aussie Farms, “Craig Mostyn Farms”, http://www.aussiepigs.com/abusers/craig-mostyn

[9] Mahony, P., “When does ‘cruel’ not mean ‘cruel’?”, Terrastendo, 31st August, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/08/31/when-does-cruel-not-mean-cruel/

Images

Aussie Farms, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/narrogin/photos

Note

This article first appeared on the website of Melbourne Pig Save on 2nd November, 2014.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Melbourne Pig Save co-founder, Karina Leung, for her recent post on this issue on the group’s Facebook page, which prompted the writing of this post.

Tags Animal Rights, Free range, livestock, Pigs

Categories Animal Rights

When does “cruel” not mean “cruel”?

August 31, 2014 //

Definition of “cruel” (Oxford dictionary): Wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.

Many people and organisations who use animals as units of production seem to use the word “cruel” in a different way to those at the Oxford Dictionary.

Here’s an example.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (POCTA) Act, Victoria, Australia

This is an extract from the website of the Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries (with my underline): [1] [Footnote 1]

“There are a number of exemptions built into the POCTA Act for activities undertaken in accordance with other legislation, codes of practice made under this Act, and the Livestock Management Act Standards. However this does not permit cruelty to occur.”

How could the department, which is responsible for administering the local prevention of cruelty to animals legislation, justify saying that the arrangements do not permit cruelty to occur? A small sample of the “activities” it refers to are outlined below. Would they be acceptable if performed on a conventional companion animal, such as a dog or a cat?

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition) [2]

The code, like other codes, is used as the basis of legislation in various states. It permits the following practices, most of which apply routinely to the vast majority of pigs (where relevant) used for food:

life-long confinement indoors;
confinement in a sow stall, with insufficient room to turn around, for up to 16.5 weeks, day and night;
confinement in a farrowing crate, with insufficient room to turn around or interact with piglets, for up to 6 weeks, day and night;
tail docking without anaesthetic;
ear notching without anaesthetic;
teeth clipping without anaesthetic;
castration without anaesthetic.

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (4th Edition) [3]

The code permits:

life-long confinement indoors, including cages;
beak trimming of chickens without anaesthetic;
removing the snood of turkeys (the skin drooping from the forehead) without anaesthetic;
removing terminal segment of males’ inward pointing toes without anaesthetic;
killing of “surplus” chicks (mainly male) in the egg industry through gassing with CO2 or by “quick maceration”. (The Oxford defines “macerate” as “soften or become softened by soaking in a liquid“. In the case of chicks, there is no soaking in liquid. They are sent along a conveyor belt to an industrial grinder while still alive.)

Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle [4]

The standards permit:

castration without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age;
dehorning without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age (see video below);
disbudding (prior to horns growing) without anaesthetic. Caustic chemicals may be used for that process under certain circumstances, including an age of less than fourteen days;
hot iron branding without anaesthetic (see video below).

Please also see comments regarding the dairy industry below.

National Animal Welfare Standards for Livestock Processing Establishments [5]

The standards allow stunning prior to slaughter by: pneumatic captive bolt guns; controlled atmosphere (CO2) stunning; and electrical stunning
They state that CO2 concentration should be greater or equal to 90% by volume, and no less than 80% when gaseous mixtures are used. (Variations are allowed following a
monitoring and verification procedure that demonstrates effective stunning.)

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments [6]

Like the standard referred to above, in respect of pigs, the code allows stunning prior to slaughter by: pneumatic captive bolt guns; controlled atmosphere (CO2) stunning; and electrical stunning.
It notes that the CO2 concentration recommended in Europe is 70% by volume, and that the recommendation may need to be modified for Australian conditions as experience with local conditions increases.

Evidence of a standard procedure in action: CO2 stunning of pigs

Activist group, Aussie Farms, says that the great majority of pigs in Australia are stunned using the CO2 method. [7]

Many people may wrongly believe that the process is free of pain and stress for animals. They may rely on statements from people such as free range farmer, Tammi Jonas of Jonai Farms, who has said that the pigs are lowered into a carbon dioxide chamber and rendered immediately unconscious. [8] An undercover video released by Aussie Farms appears to show otherwise. It is from the Corowa, New South Wales establishment of major pig meat producer, Rivalea. Jonai Farms reported in June, 2013 that they were sending their pigs to another Rivalea facility, Diamond Valley Pork in Laverton, near Melbourne.

Here’s an edited version of the Aussie Farms video, released by Animals Australia.

Some thoughts from Professor Donald Broom, Cambridge University

Aussie Farms sought comments in relation to the video from Donald Broom, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Veterinary Medicine at Cambridge University. Some of his points [9]:

The use of CO2 stunning represented a major welfare problem, as the gas is very aversive to pigs.
The extreme reactions were typical for pigs lowered into a high concentration of CO2. The welfare of the animals was very poor for 20-40 seconds.
The best gas to use in the stunning chamber is argon, or a mixture of argon and up to 20% CO2. Pigs do not detect argon, so are stunned without being aware of the gas.
For financial reasons, efforts are generally made to reduce the time taken to unconsciousness so CO2 is often used. It is somewhat cheaper than argon.

From Professor Broom’s comments, it would appear that there are options available that would cause less stress to pigs than high concentrations of CO2, and that many in the industry may be avoiding those methods for financial reasons.

What does the industry say about another cruel process, confinement in sow stalls?

Sow stalls are cages used for pregnant pigs. They are so small that the pigs are unable to turn around. They can be confined that way, day and night, for the full term of their pregnancy, around 16.5 weeks. The Australian industry’s so-called voluntary ban on sow stalls, scheduled to commence in 2017, will still allow them to be used for up to eleven days per pregnancy, and will not be binding on individual producers. [10] The industry has not indicated any action in respect of farrowing crates, which are more restrictive than sow stalls, and can be used for weeks before and after birth.

Referring to sow stalls, Andrew Spencer, CEO of Australian Pork Ltd, has said [11]:

That’s pig heaven, sow stalls are good for pigs . . .

Sow stalls are more than okay, they’re fantastic, and sows love them.

Spencer argues that the stalls protect sows from other sows who may be aggressive. The problem is that they become aggressive due to the ongoing confined conditions. Who would enjoy spending their life indoors? The industry’s response seems to be to apply one form of cruelty in order to overcome problems created by another.

The position of a major retailer, Coles

Coles is one of Australia’s largest supermarket chains. It is part of the Wesfarmers group, which is the seventh largest company on the Australian Stock Exchange, with a market capitalisation of around $49 billion. [12]

It has gained signficant PR mileage in recent times by a decision to become “sow stall free”. However, the move only applies to “Coles Brand” fresh pork and local and imported ham and bacon. The relevant producers are still permitted by Coles to use sow stalls for up to twenty-four hours per pregnancy. (I assume they rely on the producers to act in good faith in that regard, as it’s difficult to imagine an audit program that would ensure they complied.)

On 22nd November, 2012, John Durkan, then merchandise director (now managing director) of Coles was asked the following question: [13]

In terms of animal cruelty, do you think your customers are aware . . . of the legalised cruelty that still exists in terms of mutilation of piglets, for example, without anaesthetic? That is tail docking, ear notching, teeth clipping, castration, etc., and should consumers be made aware of those sorts of things to help their [purchasing] choices?

Extract of Durkan’s response:

What they do want to know is that there is no cruelty to animals, that they’re treated well . . .

If, as John Durkan says, customers “want to know that there is no cruelty to animals, that they’re treated well”, then why are the animals from whom Coles’ products are extracted treated cruelly as standard practice?

A basic requirement of efficient markets is fully informed buyers and sellers. Coles and other retailers should either inform their customers of the practices involved in supplying their products, or sell only cruelty-free products.

Additional comments on the dairy industry

Cows are continually impregnated in order to produce milk. However, the milk is intended for humans, so the cow and calf are separated almost immediately after birth, with the calves either going back into the dairy industry, to veal production or almost immediate slaughter. This process is an inherent component of dairy production and seems almost unimaginably cruel to the cow and calf.

Apart from the cruelty aspects, it seems bizarre that humans are the only species that consumes mammalian milk beyond a young age, and the only one to routinely consume the milk of another species. Consuming cows’ milk is natural for calves, but not for humans.

A short video on the issue of forced separation can be seen at the bottom of this page.

The RSPCA and potential mandatory reporting

The RSPCA in Australia has recently called for mandatory reporting of animal cruelty. The organisation’s Chief Executive, Heather Neil, has said: [14]

But there are some people who, by the nature of their role, are expected to know what animal cruelty is and when action should be taken. These people should have a legal obligation to report cruelty when they see it.

Although the RSPCA may not have identified the issue itself, its proposal highlights the strange dichotomy that exists between legal and non-legal cruelty. The organisation’s proposal is presumably aimed at non-legal cruelty, without seeming to acknowledge the horrific extent of the legal variety.

Conclusion

This article has barely scratched the surface of the cruelty that is endemic in the commercial use of animals. Double standards abound, including within the consumer population. The type of exemptions referred to here are common in other jurisdictions.

Although we like to believe that we live in a civilised society, our practices in relation to animals seem to indicate otherwise. Much of the problem arises from social, cultural and commercial conditioning, and could end with some compassionate, objective thinking.

The choice is ours.

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Slideshare and Scribd)

Footnote:

At the beginning of 2015, responsibility for administering the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals legislation was transferred to the newly formed Agriculture Victoria, within the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. The reference and link were updated on 13th January, 2016.

References

[1] Agriculture Victoria, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-legislation/prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals-legislation (accessed 13th January, 2016). (The link has been updated from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Legislation: Summary of Legislation, http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-legislation/prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals-legislation (accessed 26th August, 2014))

[2] Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition), http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/5698.htm

[3] Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (4th Edition, http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/3451.htm

[4] Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle, http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/cattle/

[5] Australian Meat Industry Council, “National Animal Welfare Standards for Livestock Processing Establishments”, Second Edition (2009), P6.2, p. 36 and http://www.amic.org.au/SiteMedia/w3svc116/Uploads/Documents/Industry%20Animal%20Welfare%20Standards.pdf

[6] Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments (2002), 2.6.2.8 – 2.6.2.10, p. 10, http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/2975.htm and http://www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=2975

[7] Aussie Farms, Australian Pig Farming – the inside story, “Corrowa Piggery and Abbatoir”, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/corowa

[8] Jonas, T., Response of 6th June, 2013 to open letter from Melbourne Pig Save, http://www.melbournepigsave.org/open-letters

[9] Statement by Prof. Donald Broom: http://www.aussiepigs.com/documents/Pig%20slaughter%20video%20Broom.pdf

[10] Hatten, R., “Minister backflips on sow stall ban”, Sydney Morning Herald, 9th Nov 2012, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/minister-backflips-on-sow-stall-ban-20121109-292lx.html

[11] 60 Minutes, Nine Network, “The Hidden Truth”, 20th November, 2009, http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=973831

[12] Smart Investor, Share Tables, Securities as at 30th April, 2014, published 8th May, 2014, http://www.afrsmartinvestor.com.au/share-tables/;jsessionid=B7AC5862FA6CEC4040C2EFCD4A587C00 (accessed 4th June, 2014)

[13] ABC Radio National Bush Telegraph and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry AgTalks event, “Australians don’t care where their food comes from, as long as it’s cheap and looks good”, 22nd November, 2012, broadcast on 26 November, 2012.

[14] McAloon, C., and Barbour, L., “RSPCA calls for laws to make reporting of animal abuse mandatory”, ABC Rural, 25th August, 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-22/nrn-rspca-animal-laws/5689764

Main image: Courtesy of Aussie Farms, http://www.aussiefarms.org.au/; http://www.aussiepigs.com/

Video: Animals Australia, “World-first video: pigs being ‘put to sleep’ in ‘humane’ abattoir”, http://vimeo.com/93703613 and http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/not-so-humane-slaughter/, based on video supplied to Aussie Farms, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/corowa/videos

Additional videos:

Dehorning cattle (Animals Australia)

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/cattle-painful-procedures.php

Branding cattle (Animals Australia)

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/cattle-painful-procedures.php

Forced separation of cow and calf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYJPbrxdn8w

Tags agriculture victoria, Animal Rights, Factory farming, Free range, livestock, Pigs

Categories Animal Rights

Ag-gag: when a gag is not a joke

July 15, 2014 //

Imagine you are a meat-eating consumer who felt uneasy about the possibility of poor welfare standards at a major piggery. Would the following points help to allay your concerns?

The business had been supplying the giant supermarket chain, Woolworths for ten years, and at the time was supplying 20% of its fresh pork in your state.
The owner was appearing in Woolworth’s brochures as one of its “fresh food people”.
The piggery had passed a quality audit inspection just three months earlier.
A director and shareholder of the company that managed the piggery was also on the board of the peak industry organisation.

Based on that information, you might be willing to give the business the benefit of the doubt.

If you then found that the peak industry organisation was owned by producers and administered the quality accreditation scheme (including animal welfare aspects), some doubts might re-emerge.

All those facts applied in 2009, when animal activists entered the premises of Oliver’s Piggery in Winnaleah, Tasmania.

The activists thought conditions would be poor, but were shocked by what they found. Some key points: [1]

Three sows were destroyed by a vet soon after the activists gave police a copy of their video footage.
The sows were extremely emaciated, and unwilling or unable to stand.
Two had festering ulcers up to 12 centimetres in diameter, and one of that pair was unable to move because her snout was stuck under the bar of a mesh divider.
She could not reach food or water and her wounds were flyblown with adult and juvenile maggots.
Layers of faeces were deposited in group pig pens. The owner admitted the pens hadn’t been cleaned for two months.
More than 70 per cent of the 46 sows in farrowing crates had pressure sores on their sides needing treatment.

After the local RSPCA refused to become involved, the activists took their video to the police, who visited the piggery with the activists’ assistance. They charged the owner and the company that managed the piggery with aggravated cruelty offences, and both were eventually penalised by the courts. [2]

One of the two activists, Emma Haswell of Brightside Farm Sanctuary, appeared in numerous media outlets in relation to the matter, including “The Hidden Truth” on 60 Minutes (Nine Network). [3]

While Emma appears to have been widely regarded as a hero, her counterparts five years later are seemingly being demonised and targeted by potential “ag-gag” laws.

The animal advocacy group, Voiceless, describes ag-gag as “variety of laws which seek to hinder or ‘gag’ animal protection advocates by preventing them from recording the operations of commercial agricultural facilities.” [4]

Voiceless says that ag-gag laws generally target undercover investigators, whistleblowers and journalists, and may take the form of: (a) criminalising the undercover or covert surveillance of commercial animal facilities; (b) requiring that any footage obtained be turned over to enforcement agencies immediately rather than given to animal protection groups or the media; and (c) requiring potential employees of commercial animal facilities to disclose current or past ties to animal protection groups.

Within Australia, a relevant bill is before the Parliament of South Australia. Victoria’s Minister for Agriculture, Peter Walsh and the Minister for Primary Industries in New South Wales, Katrina Hodgkinson (with support from Federal Agriculture Minister, Barnaby Joyce) have announced that they intend introducing similar legislation. [5]

Ms Hodgkinson, has described animal activists entering commercial establishments as “akin to terrorists”. [6]

The South Australian bill includes penalties of $15,000 or 3 years imprisonment for individuals who use, communicate or publish material collected through the use of surveillance devices.

So, from a time in 2009 when the police and the courts supported an undercover investigation by animal activists, today politicians are seeking to turn the tables.

A Woolworths spokesperson said the situation at Oliver’s was unacceptable and that the activists’ tactics “obviously exposed a serious issue at the farm”. [7]

During the trial, the defence lawyer said, “What has in fact happened is that an animal activist has entered the farm without any invitation from Mr Oliver or the family and that is a concern.”

In his response, the magistrate said, “It might well have turned out to be in the public interest . . . “

It was certainly in the animals’ interests.

Shouldn’t that be the ultimate test?

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Slideshare, Scribd, and Twitter)

Footnote:

The potential move toward ag-gag laws in Australia may be a response to the relatively recent exposure of dozens of establishments by activist group Aussie Farms (including investigations by Animal Liberation ACT and Animal Liberation NSW) and the onging work of groups like Animal Liberation Victoria, responsible for dozens of investigations of its own, as shown on its “Free Range Fraud” website and elsewhere. Here are some relevant sites:

Aussie Farms, http://www.aussiefarms.org.au/

Aussie Pigs, http://www.aussiepigs.com/

Aussie Abattoirs, http://www.aussieabattoirs.com/

Free Range Fraud (Animal Liberation Victoria), http://freerangefraud.com/

References:

[1] Carter, P. “Ashamed to be a human being”, Tasmanian Times, 1st October, 2009, http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/emma-haswell-hero

[2] Stateline, ABC, “Pig Cruelty”, Presenter Airlie Ward, 8th May, 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s2564758.htm

[3] 60 Minutes, Nine Network, “The Hidden Truth”, 20th November, 2009, http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=973831

[4] Voiceless, “Ag-gag” (undated), https://www.voiceless.org.au/the-issues/ag-gag (accessed 14th July, 2014)

[5] Voiceless, “Ag-gag hidden in new legislation”, 3rd July, 2014, https://www.voiceless.org.au/content/ag-gag-hidden-new-legislation and “Animal law in the spotlight: SA Bill acts as ‘ag-gag'”, 23rd June, 2014, https://www.voiceless.org.au/content/animal-law-spotlight-sa-bill-acts-%E2%80%9Cag-gag%E2%80%9D

[6] ABC News, “Animal rights activists ‘akin to terrorists’, says NSW minister Katrina Hodgkinson”, 18th July, 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-18/animal-rights-activists-27terrorists272c-says-nsw-minister/4828556

[7] Carter, P., op. cit.

Image: Extract from “The Pig Files: Scales of Justice” (footage from Oliver’s Piggery), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpIrB6UOL7s

Further Reading and Viewing:

The Plight of Pigs: Oliver’s Piggery, Tasmania, https://terrastendo.net/2013/01/02/the-plight-of-pigs-olivers-piggery-tasmania/

Tags Animal Rights, Factory farming, livestock, Pigs

Categories Animal Rights

No, humans are not at the top of the food chain

May 13, 2014 //

Despite what many of those who advocate meat-eating would like to believe, humans do not sit at the top of the food chain. In any event, it’s a food web rather than a chain, due to the many complex interactions involved.

An article commenting on our position in the food web was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in late 2013. [1]

According to the head of the research team, Sylvain Bonhommeau of the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea in Sète, “We are closer to herbivore than carnivore. . . . It changes the preconception of being top predator.” [2]

The article considered the trophic level of different species and nations. Trophic levels “represent a synthetic metric of species’ diet, which describe the composition of food consumed and enables comparisons of diets between species”.

A species’ trophic level is calculated as the average of trophic levels of food items in its diet, weighted by quantity, plus one.

If an animal were to eat nothing but cows, its trophic level would be 3, calculated as the sum of 2 (the cow’s trophic level as referred to below) and 1. The trophic level of another animal that were to only eat that animal would be 4, and so on.

Plants and other “primary producers”, such as phytoplankton, have a trophic level of 1. A species that consumes only plants, such as a cow or elephant, has a trophic level of 2. The trophic level of apex predators, such as polar bears and killer whales is 5.5.

The researchers reported that the global median human trophic level (HTL) in 2009 was 2.21, representing a 3 percent increase since 1961. The authors said, “In the global food web, we discover that humans are similar to anchovy or pigs and cannot be considered apex predators”.

Here’s how the rankings of a few species can be depicted, without attempting to display the complex interactions involved:

Figure 1: Some examples of trophic levels

A major concern in terms of the environment and the rights of animals is the increasing overall human trophic level, driven largely by growing levels of meat consumption in China and India. The authors stated, “With economic growth, these countries are gaining the ability to support the human preference for high meat diets”.

Figure 2: Trends in human trophic level (1961-2009)

Since 1960, we have seen a reduction in the percentage of plants in the human diet and a corresponding increase in the percentage of terrestrial and marine animals.

Figure 3: Percentage of plants and animals in the human diet

Some climate change implications

Animal agriculture is a key contributor to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Land clearing for livestock grazing and feedcrop production, in addition to releasing massive amounts of carbon, has reduced the biosphere’s ability to draw down existing carbon. According to leading climate scientist, Dr James Hansen, we must reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to around 350 ppm (parts per million) if we are to overcome the threat of climate change. Massive reforestation and restoration of soil carbon is required in order to achieve that target. [3] In April, 2014, carbon dioxide concentrations reached 401.9 ppm. [4]

It seems ironic that China is contributing to the problem by increasing its meat consumption. The Chinese leadership would surely understand the extreme dangers posed by climate change, including a potential loss of dry-season water flows into key river systems due to the potential loss of glaciers.

Climate change author, David Spratt, has stated [5]:

“Taken together with those on the neighbouring Tibetan plateau, the Himalayan–Hindu Kush glaciers represent the largest body of ice on the planet outside the polar regions, feeding Asia’s great river systems, including the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Huang He. The basins of these rivers are home to over a billion people from Pakistan to China. The Himalayas supply as much as 70 per cent of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50–60 per cent of the dry-season flow in other major rivers. In China, 23 per cent of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt provides the principal dry season water source. The implications of the loss of the Himalayan ice sheet are global and mind numbing, but such a calamity rarely rates a mention in Australia.”

Australia seems happy to help China to satisfy its growing taste for red meat by expanding its exports. [6]

The existence of critical environmental externalities in beef production means that the Chinese and other consumers of Australian meat are paying a fraction of the product’s true cost.

Meanwhile, the Chinese maintain a population of nearly 500 million pigs, which is just under half the global population. [7]. Those pigs consume enormous amounts of soy from overseas, including soy grown in the Amazon and Cerrado regions of South America. Both regions contain massive stores of carbon, which are released through land clearing for feedcrop production (including soy) and livestock grazing. [8]

Figure 4: Soybean Production, Consumption and Imports in China 1964-2011

China’s projected soy bean imports for 2014/15 are 72 million tonnes. The second-ranked importer is the European Union, with 12.5 million tonnes. [9]

With domestic production of 12 million tonnes, China’s total consumption in 2014/15 is 84 million tonnes, up from approximately 70 million tonnes in 2011 (including imports of 59 million tonnes).

Only around 10 percent of the soybeans used in China are consumed directly as food by humans. The other 90 percent are crushed, separating the oil and meal, with the latter widely used in animal feed rations. [8]

Some health implications

The PNAS paper categorised countries into five groups:

Low and stable HTLs (majority of sub-Saharan countries and most of Southeast Asia)
Low and increasing HTLs (several countries throughout Asia, Africa, and South America, including China and India)
Higher initial HTLs than group 2, with an increasing trend (Central America, Brazil, Chile, Southern Europe, several African countries and Japan)
High and stable HTLs until around 1990, when they began to decrease (North America, Northern and Eastern Europe, Australia, and New Zealand)
The highest overall HTLs and decreasing trends (Iceland, Scandinavia, Mongolia, and Mauritania)

Health concerns have been a key driver of HTL reductions in countries within Groups 4 and 5.

In Group 4, “the nutrition transition has reached a point where health problems associated with high fat and meat diets (i.e., high HTLs) have led to changes in policy and government-run education programs that encourage these populations to shift to more plant-based diets”.

The reductions in HTLs within Scandinavian countries (Group 5) “is due to government policies promoting healthier diets”.

Rising meat consumption in China and India is likely to lead to a marked increase in rates of diseases and conditions such as heart disease, certain cancers, obesity and diabetes. [10]

According to the American Dietetic Association, well-planned plant-based diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle. [11]

As such, the world’s human population could aim for a trophic level of 2, with critical environmental and health benefits, not to mention the reduction in animal exploitation and cruelty.

For Australian and New Zealand readers, you should be aware that The Medical Journal of Australia has reported: “In contrast to the United States . . . Food Standards Australia New Zealand permits only a limited number of foods to be fortified with vitamin B12. This includes selected soy milks, yeast spread, and vegetarian meat analogues such as soy-based burgers and sausages.” [12] Vitamin B12 was once more readily available than at present to those on a plant-based diet without fortification or supplementation, in a manner that was far more natural than the forced breeding practices and ecosystem destruction that characterise the animal agriculture sector, past and present. [13]

and have previously written, in relation to B12, that (a) destroying rainforests and other natural environs; and (b) operating industrial farming systems; purely for animal food products, is hardly natural. Sadly, in Australia, fortification of food products is not permitted to the same extent as in the USA. The Medical Journal of Australia has reported: “In contrast to the United States, where foods are extensively fortified with vitamin B12, Food Standards Australia New Zealand permits only a limited number of foods to be fortified with vitamin B12. This includes selected soy milks, yeast spread, and vegetarian meat analogues such as soy-based burgers and sausages.” (Zeuschner, C.L. et al., “Vitamin B12 and vegetarian diets”, MJA Open 2012; 1 Suppl 2: 27-32, 4 June 2012, https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/2/vitamin-b12-and-vegetarian-diets) – See more at: http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/b12-magic-pill-veganisms-achilles-heel/#sthash.8N41mRvm.dpuf

I agree completely with your comments on the question of what is natural, and have previously written, in relation to B12, that (a) destroying rainforests and other natural environs; and (b) operating industrial farming systems; purely for animal food products, is hardly natural. Sadly, in Australia, fortification of food products is not permitted to the same extent as in the USA. The Medical Journal of Australia has reported: “In contrast to the United States, where foods are extensively fortified with vitamin B12, Food Standards Australia New Zealand permits only a limited number of foods to be fortified with vitamin B12. This includes selected soy milks, yeast spread, and vegetarian meat analogues such as soy-based burgers and sausages.” (Zeuschner, C.L. et al., “Vitamin B12 and vegetarian diets”, MJA Open 2012; 1 Suppl 2: 27-32, 4 June 2012, https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/2/vitamin-b12-and-vegetarian-diets) – See more at: http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/b12-magic-pill-veganisms-achilles-heel/#sthash.8N41mRvm.dpuf

Conclusion

Overall global livestock production is proceeding at unsustainable levels, with no sign of slowing down. If we wish to retain a habitable planet, we must urgently address the issue of diet in addition to fossil fuels.

The time to act is now!

Footnote: None of the material contained in this article should be construed as representing medical, health, nutritional, dietary or similar advice.

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Slideshare, and Scribd).

References:

[1] Bonhommeau, S., Dubroca, L., Le Pape, O., Barde, J., Kaplan, D.M., Chassot, E., Nieblas, A.E., “Eating up the world’s food web and the human trophic level”, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305827110 (2013)

[2] Hoag, H., “Humans are becoming more carnivorous”, Nature, 2nd Dec, 2013, doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14282, http://www.nature.com/news/humans-are-becoming-more-carnivorous-1.14282

[3] Hansen, J; Sato, M; Kharecha, P; Beerling, D; Berner, R; Masson-Delmotte, V; Pagani, M; Raymo, M; Royer, D.L.; and Zachos, J.C. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, 2008. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

[4] Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division, Up-to-date weekly average CO₂ at Mauna Loa, Week beginning on May 4, 2014 (401.9 ppm), http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

[5] David Spratt,“Global Warming – No more business as usual: This is an emergency!”, Environmental Activists’ Conference 2008: Climate Emergency – No More Business as Usual, 10 October, 2008, reproduced in Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, http://links.org.au/node/683

[6] Binsted, T., “Australia poised to benefit from China’s beef demand”, The Age, 24 April, 2014, http://www.theage.com.au/business/australia-poised-to-benefit-from-chinas-beef-demand-20140424-375pt.html

[7] FAOSTAT, Live Animals, 2012, http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancor, accessed 12 May, 2014. (Actual number: 471,875,000 of a global population of 966,170,968)

[8] Brown, L.R., “Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity, Chapter 9, China and the Soybean Challenge”, Earth Policy Institute, 6 November, 2013, http://www.earthpolicy.org/books/fpep/fpepch9

[9] United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service Approved by the World Agricultural Outlook Board/USDA Circular Series, “Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade”, May 2014, http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/oilseeds.pdf

[10] Mahony, P., “If you thinks it’s healthy to eat animals, perhaps you should think again”, 12th February, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/02/12/if-you-think-its-healthy-to-eat-animals-perhaps-you-should-think-again/

[11] Craig, W.J., Mangels, A.R., American Dietetic Association, “Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets.”, J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

[12] Zeuschner, C.L. et al., “Vitamin B12 and vegetarian diets”, MJA Open 2012; 1 Suppl 2: 27-32, 4 June 2012, https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/2/vitamin-b12-and-vegetarian-diets

[13] Capps, A., “B12: A Magic Pill, or Veganism’s Achilles Heel?”, Free from Harm, 11 April, 2014, http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/b12-magic-pill-veganisms-achilles-heel/

Figures:

Figure 1 – Prepared by author

Figure 2 – Bonhommeau, S. et al., op. cit., Figure 1 (A)

Figure 3 – ibid., Supporting Information, Figure 4

Figure 4 – Brown, L.R., op. cit., Figure 9–1 based on data from USDA, Production, Supply, and Distribution, electronic database, at www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline, updated 10 May 2012; D. H. Baker, “D.E. (Gene) Becker and the Evolution of the Corn-Soybean Meal Diet for Pigs,” Illinois Swine Research Reports (2003), pp. 101-04; Jack Cook, An Introduction to Hog Feeding Spreads (Chicago: Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 2009), p. 3.

Tags Cancer, climate, climate change, Diabetes, environment, Factory farming, Health, Heart disease, livestock, Obesity, Pigs, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment, Health

Emissions intensity

Is it okay to eat other animal products?

A climate emergency with no buffer

Other overlooked climate change impacts of consuming fish and other sea creatures

Conclusion

Author

Footnotes

References

Image

Update

Share this:

Like this:

A Contrasting Case: Oliver’s Piggery, Tasmania

What About Proposed “Ag-Gag” Legislation?

Where do we stand as a society and as individuals?

Author

Note

Further reading and viewing

Image

Share this:

Like this:

What is the problem?

Livestock’s impacts are understated

Some key contributors

The impact of chicken, pig and dairy consumption

Seafood’s impacts

Will we grasp a golden opportunity?

The failure of prominent environmental groups

Social Justice

Personal choice?

Conclusion

Author

Footnote

References

Image

Share this:

Like this:

A new perspective based on potential consequences

What is the problem with feed crops?

The Amazon tipping point

Growth in livestock and related feed crop production

The Amazon soy moratorium and other measures are failing

Consumption in all countries contributes to the Amazon problem

China may be willing to act

Conclusion

Author

Footnote

Sources

Images

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Author

References

Image

Note

Share this:

Like this:

Some other points to consider

Conclusion

Author

References

Images

Note

Acknowledgement

Share this:

Like this:

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (POCTA) Act, Victoria, Australia

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition) [2]

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (4th Edition) [3]

Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle [4]

National Animal Welfare Standards for Livestock Processing Establishments [5]

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments [6]

Evidence of a standard procedure in action: CO2 stunning of pigs

Some thoughts from Professor Donald Broom, Cambridge University

The position of a major retailer, Coles

The RSPCA and potential mandatory reporting

Share this:

Like this: