Philosophical Vegan Forum

This posts title is the title of a article I just read stating how grass fed beef doesn't tilt the land every year and there for it kills less living creatures than if we had legumes or other crops growing there. There for it reduces suffering compared to crops. Also it allows other animals to live there instead of destroying their homes like crops would which reduces the amount of animals that would die.

You could say that most of the creature most likely don't suffer as much that die like worms and insects. Although mice rabbits and other small critters might have the same suffering capacity as a cow.


Of course grass fed is still not sustainable or good for the environment compared to some plant based agriculture. All of That aside...


What's your guys thoughts on this? I suggest you read the article, just search it on Google.

You grow crops for "grass fed" beef. Grass fed isn't the same as pasture fed. Since cows produce so much food its possible that a purely pastured cow would result in less intelligent animals being killed than a comparable amount of legumes, grains or vegetables. But nobody has really measured the amount of animals that end up dying when crops are cultivated so its a guessing game until there are more rigorous numbers.

carnap wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:04 am You grow crops for "grass fed" beef. Grass fed isn't the same as pasture fed. Since cows produce so much food its possible that a purely pastured cow would result in less intelligent animals being killed than a comparable amount of legumes, grains or vegetables. But nobody has really measured the amount of animals that end up dying when crops are cultivated so its a guessing game until there are more rigorous numbers.

Hey I just read a article titled "why crops don't kill more animals than pastured cows" and it showed multiple studied where they tracked mice while the fields were being plowed. Most of the time no mice died but one out of the three studies showed that a couple did die. Compared to pastured lands it's still less because they kill wild life to protect the cows and pastured land with cows means a lot of the mice and creatures there are competing with the cows for some of the food. Also grazing can damage the homes of some ground feeling creatures and it takes more land to raise a grazing cow than to grow crops so by that logic it's obvious even grazing cattle cause more deaths.

Third Person Groove wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:02 pm Hey I just read a article titled "why crops don't kill more animals than pastured cows" and it showed multiple studied where they tracked mice while the fields were being plowed. Most of the time no mice died but one out of the three studies showed that a couple did die. Compared to pastured lands it's still less because they kill wild life to protect the cows and pastured land with cows means a lot of the mice and creatures there are competing with the cows for some of the food. Also grazing can damage the homes of some ground feeling creatures and it takes more land to raise a grazing cow than to grow crops so by that logic it's obvious even grazing cattle cause more deaths.

There are a few studies with estimates, none that have rigorously tracked matters. But the estimates differ where some argue that more mice are killed per amount of food than with pasture cattle. Also you'd have to look at the various farming methods and also look at what happens after cultivation. For example both grain and legume crops are prone to rodent infestations and rodents have to be controlled.

In any case, which would case more animal deaths isn't obvious and we lack the studies to determine one way or other. All we have is speculation and crude estimates.

[\quote]
There are a few studies with estimates, none that have rigorously tracked matters. But the estimates differ where some argue that more mice are killed per amount of food than with pasture cattle. Also you'd have to look at the various farming methods and also look at what happens after cultivation. For example both grain and legume crops are prone to rodent infestations and rodents have to be controlled.

In any case, which would case more animal deaths isn't obvious and we lack the studies to determine one way or other. All we have is speculation and crude estimates.
[/quote]



Thank you there are other aspects I was not considering. I need to experience more of this in general and do more research before I saw anything is obvious.

Third Person Groove wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:02 pm Hey I just read a article titled "why crops don't kill more animals than pastured cows" and it showed multiple studied where they tracked mice while the fields were being plowed. Most of the time no mice died but one out of the three studies showed that a couple did die. Compared to pastured lands it's still less because they kill wild life to protect the cows and pastured land with cows means a lot of the mice and creatures there are competing with the cows for some of the food. Also grazing can damage the homes of some ground feeling creatures and it takes more land to raise a grazing cow than to grow crops so by that logic it's obvious even grazing cattle cause more deaths.

That's the most probable explanation. Cows are not benign, they even trample small animals/nests killing who knows how many.

There has been concern about poisoning, and how that may reach its way to more intelligent predatory birds, etc. but that concern seems to be overblown in terms of the numbers (which appear to be very small).
I went into it a bit here:
viewtopic.php?p=34152#p34152

If you DO know that a cow is killed, but the number of casualties related to it or the alternative is unknown, the sensible thing to do is go based on what you know. Eat the legumes instead of the cow.
Leave the unknown in the margins, people only bring that stuff up to muddy the waters and hide from ethical responsibility. To address those people you could explain by analogy and say the same thing about any unethical act like mass shootings (we know how many people are killed, but we don't know how many it saved/how many would die without the shooting so it's all unknown!).

It's only when we're spending a lot of resources on something (like a social program) where we'd need to know the exact numbers because there are a lot of competing alternatives. Veganism has advantages all-around in environmental terms (and likely human health as well, although obviously there are unhealthy vegan options rich in processed sugar etc.) and there isn't a lot of competition in the same ball-park of effective altruism for effort involved.

Wonderful thank you brimstoneSalad