Crop Deaths
A common retort by anti-vegans is the claim that crop deaths are a morally relevant standpoint on which to refute veganism. Crop deaths refer to the accidental killing of small animals like rodents and insects that happens in mass agriculture, especially during harvest season. The fallacious argument revolves around it being actually vegans who are killing more animals than the average meat-eater due to the number of animals that end up being killed in crop production.
These arguments are usually not presented in good faith; it raises eyebrows that someone who has no problem with the suffering and deaths of beings who are on a much higher sentience scale than small animals and insects will, all of a sudden, start to care about small animals and insects. It is a safe bet to say that the vast majority of the people coming forward with this argument do not actually care about the animals killed in crop production, and are only concerned with making a shallow tu quoque statement in order to make vegans look like hypocrites.
The argument has been around for a while, but it seems to have picked up steam in the past few years. It may seem pretty damning at first, but once you take a few minutes to break it down, it is incredibly easy to refute.
The argument falls on its knees when you look at two things:
1. the sentience of small animals and insects killed in crop production is of magnitudes lower when compared to mammals that are used and killed for animal products
2. the amount of crops that have to be harvested and that are allocated for animal consumption is much higher than what is grown for human consumption, so many more small animals and insects are killed as a result of animal agriculture demands compared to the crops grown for humans--thus, removing animal agriculture would only lower the amount of crop deaths
Sentience of animals killed in production
To elaborate on the first point, we have to talk about the level of sentience of the animals in question. For this, referring to our in-depth sentience [1] article might help.
Animals do not all have the same level of cognitive abilities and, thus, sentience. Some animals have a bigger and more complex central nervous system that allows for a higher level of cognition and sentience. When comparing insects to mammals such as cows and pigs, it becomes apparent which side is relevant it terms of sentience and moral importance.
The animals that are involved in what concerns crop deaths are mainly two types.
1. Insects, such as grasshoppers, plant-parasitic worms, ants that are above ground and travelling on plants that being harvested, and other insects that mostly rely on crawling-like movement to get around as opposed to insects that can fly and that can easily get away from harvesting tools and machines for the most part.
2. Small rodents, such as rats and voles, that sometimes hang around in fields to eat the crops. With that said, this represents a smaller number, as the commonality of rodents roaming fields is grossly exaggerated, and rodents get away very swiftly with the approaching loud noises of harvesting machines and vehicles. The amount of rodents caught in them and killed is a small percentage compared to the ones that get away or are not present during the harvest.
When it comes to insects, their small brain only allows for a limited level of sentience. They are far from the ability to subjectively interpret their surroundings and have strong emotions and desires like bigger mammals do.
When it comes to rodents, they are higher on the scale of sentience than insects are, but still lower than animals such as cows and pigs. It is also noteworthy that these deaths amount for a much lower percentage than what insect deaths are, and that the rodents' survival instincts and speed lets them escape in most cases. They do not simply lie down and await death.
Livestock consumes more crops and causes more crop deaths than humans do, and thus the argument only promotes further that veganism is vastly less harmful
The people that propose this argument seem to conveniently forget that cows, chickens, and pigs do not just survive on air; they, like every other animal, require food in order to survive--and not only to survive, but to get fattened. Food such as oats, corn, and soy, which, by our observations are grown and harvested as crops on farmland. In fact, the majority of what is grown on land is given to livestock. The amount of crops used for animal agriculture is commonly glossed over, when it is one of the, if not the, major reasons that animal agriculture is unsustainable.
To give a figures so that the scope of this is understood, somewhere between 77% to 80% of the soy is grown for and fed to animals. [2] [3]
Here you can see a breakdown of where soy actually goes.
As you can see, only about 6%-7% of the soy goes to vegan-friendly products, such as soybeans, tofu, and tempeh for human consumption. 13% is oil. And the majority 76% goes to animals.
A common response given by anti-vegans to the argument that most of the crops are fed to animals is that the majority of crops grown (give or take 86%) are not fit for human consumption anyway. However, this huge amount of crops and land still results in crop deaths that would not have to be there if not for animal agriculture. The people using this as a response are either willfully ignorant or parroting and not paying enough attention to realize that this actually is more of an argument against them than vegans. Let's break it down.
We are already growing enough crops to feed every single human in the world, but we choose to dedicate roughly 80% of our agricultural land to livestock, which is a huge waste. Indeed, feeding the population of the United States with crops grown inside the country would overall require less land, crops, and resources than if we were to continue eating meat-based diets, and of course, by extension, result in fewer crop deaths overall. This is basic thermodynamics, and there is no way around basic math. Livestock needs more crops grown for them than would be necessary for humans, and supporting animal agriculture will result in more crop deaths than the plant-based alternative.
This is a good graph regarding the allocation of land. [4]
Animal agriculture produces less calories occupying 77% of the land than the plant crops occupying the remaining 23%, which shows just the extent of how inefficient it is, and shows that animal agriculture requires a much bigger area and many more crops.
It is unclear how it is expected to be a rebuttal against the argument that livestock requires more crops, since, as already mentioned, we are already producing enough food with the relatively small amount of land being used. An additional 86% of crops being grown is bringing in the requirement of needing far more land that is only useful for livestock. In the United States, roughly a third of the entire country's land mass is used for cattle pasture, and growing livestock feed. We do not need anywhere near that much land to feed the world on plant-based diets. This results in deforestation (destroying habitats, and being the biggest contributor to climate change with the loss of trees).
The fact that simultaneously a huge majority of crops are not fit for human consumption and they are producing less calories than the minority of plants being grown for human consumption, just shows how much of a waste animal agriculture is. Even if the current amount of crops being grown are being used for animal agriculture, this is all land and resources that could be used to grow crops that humans can eat.
