Debunking “Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands.”

mouse water

Many people have certainly come across the article: “Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands.” by Mike Archer.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftheconversation.com%2Fordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659&h=YAQGYqZ5y

Professor Archer is an Australian paleontologist and Professor at the University of New South Wales.
The huge popularity of the piece is more likely because it allows those who don’t care or think about animals at all to superficially stick it to vegetarians and claim they were right all along (by pure luck presumably), rather than because its claim really stands up to scrutiny.
In the disclosure statement that precedes his article, he states that he does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from the article, and has no relevant affiliations. Strangely enough, though, the article has been published on The Conversation journal, mainly funded by CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) which is an agency that researches farm management including pastures and livestock to improve production: this doesn’t seem to guarantee independence, does it?

First of all Mike Archer seems to deliberately skip one major issue: the quality of animal deaths, not the quantity. Animal farming demeans the dignity of non-human animals (who can never escape from the final murder). It’s true that harvests can kill insect, lizards, snails and mice. Elephants, buffaloes and other animals do the same while they walk and feed on plants, but they haven’t built a whole system of torture, slavery and exploitation of other animals.

We’ll examine Archer’s points and his claims about numbers and compare them to our answers. Before we start, we should point out that he talks about “vegetarians” (not even “vegans”), thus ignoring the billions of male chicks destroyed by the egg industry, the millions of calves and cows killed by the dairy industry and the thousands of organisms contaminated by the waste of the milk and egg industry…

We’ll also avoid to judge Professor Mike Archer on one remarkable weakness: while concentrating on non-human animals and biased data in order to justify his barbecue, he forgot to mention the human victims of animal farming: those who die of several types of food-related cancers and diseases.

1)

Mike Archer:
” Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in: at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein, more environmental damage, and a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.”

AAA:
The grain harvest fluctuates from year to year, but on average, animals consume about one-third of it. Of this amount, beef cattle consume 21%, similar to the amount eaten by broiler chickens. This is shown in the report published by the Stock Feed Manufacturers’ Council. In fact, it’s not too difficult to demonstrate that animals consume more wheat than all of Australia’s population.
In Australia, the demand for animal feed is so high that we have to import over half a million tonnes of additional soybean per year. We produce enough soybean to meet a strong local demand in the human food supply, such as tofu and flour products.
Grazing on grass is not all that cows raised for meat generally eat, and I expect it is mostly not what any additional cows we produce will eat.
Prior to entering a feedlot, cattle spend most of their life grazing on rangeland or on immature fields of grain such as green wheat pasture. Once cattle obtain an entry-level weight, about 650 pounds (300 kg), they are transferred to a feedlot to be fed a specialized diet which consists of corn by-products (derived from ethanol production), barley, and other grains as well as alfalfa. Feeds sometimes contain animal byproducts or cottonseed meal, and minerals. In a typical feedlot, a cow’s diet is roughly 95% grain. The animal may gain an additional 400 pounds (180 kg) during its 3–4 months in the feedlot.[citation needed] Once cattle are fattened up to their finished weight, the fed cattle are transported to a slaughterhouse.
So, basically, the myth about “pure” grain-free grazing is a lie: cows feed on the same wheat and grains Mike Archer mentioned…. There’s one big problem with the argument – not all, but a large share of the meat people eat in beef is just repackaged intensively farmed grains.

More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption.
The global livestock industry uses dwindling supplies of freshwater, destroys forests and grasslands, and causes soil erosion, while pollution and the runoff of fertilizer and animal waste create dead zones in coastal areas and smother coral reefs.
“Livestock systems occupy 45% of the global surface area” (International Livestock Research Institute).
To create grazing land, trees and vegetation must be cleared, and habitats must be destroyed. Livestock trample or eat any remaining native vegetation.
read more:
http://canberravegan.blogspot.com.au/2013_09_01_archive.html

2)

Mike Archer:
“Most of Australia’s arable land is already in use. If more Australians want their nutritional needs to be met by plants, our arable land will need to be even more intensely farmed. This will require a net increase in the use of fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and other threats to biodiversity and environmental health. Or, if existing laws are changed, more native vegetation could be cleared for agriculture (an area the size of Victoria plus Tasmania would be needed to produce the additional amount of plant-based food required).

AAA:
As we’ve already said, in Australia, 58% of the land is used for agriculture and principally for grazing animals and the production of crops used in animal feed.
Overgrazing is one of the main pressures on biodiversity in Australia. Grazing and various agricultural improvement strategies have modified vast areas of grasslands and open grassy woodlands. In temperate ecosystems, less than 2% of the original grasslands remain.
Moreover, overgrazing promotes desertification and erosion.
In regard to the “use of fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides” mentioned by Mark Archer, well, he happily omits to mention organic agriculture and the fact that vegans support organic GMO-free crops…
read more:
http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/australia/environmental_problems_in_australia/

3)

Mike Archer:
Grazing occurs on primarily native ecosystems. These have and maintain far higher levels of native biodiversity than croplands. The rangelands can’t be used to produce crops, so production of meat here doesn’t limit production of plant foods. Grazing is the only way humans can get substantial nutrients from 70% of the continent.

AAA:
Overgrazing is one of the main pressures on biodiversity in Australia. Mike Archer also seems to forget that substantial nutrients come from a plant-based diet too…
Moreover, the world’s 1.5 billion cows and billions of other grazing animals emit dozens of polluting gases, including lots of methane. Two-thirds of all ammonia comes from cows.
The livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
This means that the damage caused by grazing does not only affect some territories directly but also affects every part of the planet.
Archers says the rangelands can’t be used to produce crops. He has preferred not to mention and other suitable crops for arid zones…
read more:
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.html

4)

Mike Archer:
“Archer: In Australia we can also meet part of our protein needs using sustainably wild-harvested kangaroo meat. Unlike introduced meat animals, they don’t damage native biodiversity. They are soft-footed, low methane-producing and have relatively low water requirements. They also produce an exceptionally healthy low-fat meat.”

AAA:
This is really ironic, since graziers complain about kangaroos as pests… 90 million kangaroos have been killed in the last 20 years. Dangerous levels of salmonella and E.coli have been found in kangaroo meat destined for human consumption, backing up claims by a former NSW chief food inspector, Desmond Sibraa, that the industry is failing to adhere to the Australian standard which determines the conditions under which the animals are harvested, transported and stored.
”There is a big difference between animals slaughtered in an abattoir with an inspector present, and a kangaroo shot in the bush with dust and blowflies,” said Dr Sibraa.
read more:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/hygiene-threatens-kangaroo-meat-industry-20091117-ikf6.html

5)

Mike Archer:
“When cattle, kangaroos and other meat animals are harvested they are killed instantly. Mice die a slow and very painful death from poisons. From a welfare point of view, these methods are among the least acceptable modes of killing. Although joeys are sometimes killed or left to fend for themselves, only 30% of kangaroos shot are females, only some of which will have young (the industry’s code of practice says shooters should avoid shooting females with dependent young).

AAA:
This is probably the most insulting lie for all those who know what really happens to kangaroos.
Non-fatal body shots are an unavoidable part of the industry, causing horrific and painful injuries. The mouth of a kangaroo can be blown off and the kangaroo can escape to die of shock and starvation. Forearms can be blown off, as can ears, eyes and noses. Stomachs can be hit expelling the contents with the kangaroo still alive. Backbones can be pulverized to an unrecognisable state etc. Hind legs can be shattered with the kangaroo desperately trying to get away on the other or without the use of either. To deny that this goes on is just an exercise in attempting to fool the public.
Dependent joeys (young kangaroos) who are not caught and killed die as a result of starvation, exposure or predation without their mothers to teach them vital survival skills such as finding food, water and shelter. A long-term average of 800,000 dependent young suffer an inhumane death each year. In-pouch joeys are killed by stomping on them or bashing them with a stick or against a vehicle. Several blows may be necessary.
read more:
http://www.voiceless.org.au/the-issues/kangaroos

6)

AAA:
Mike Archer didn’t bother to calculate the effects on groundwater, rivers and marine life of manure, waste and hormones: What about the effect of hormones on the environment?
Growth-promoting hormones not only remain in the meat people consume, but also pass through the cattle to be excreted in manure.
Scientists are increasingly concerned about the environmental impacts of this hormone residue as it leaks from manure into the environment, contaminating soil, and surface and groundwater. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to hormone residues.
Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to hormones has a substantial effect on the gender and reproductive capacity of fish.
read more:
http://www.sustainabletable.org/258/hormones

7)

AAA:
Mike Archer is suddenly so interested in mice? Mmmh… Then how could he have possibly forgotten all the mice used to test the antibiotics? Australia imports approximately 700 tonnes of antibiotics annually; of this, 550 tonnes are used for either veterinary therapy (sick animals in farms) or growth promotion (higher yields of growth of farmed animals). On farms, animals are fed large quantities of powerful antibiotics to keep them alive in conditions that would otherwise kill them: chickens are given nearly four times the amount of antibiotics as human beings, for example.
Funny how the article is published on a journal funded by all the main Australian universities where a huge number of mouse will be tortured and killed for that obsolete practice which goes under the name of animal testing.
read more:
http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/National-surveillance-and-reporting-of-antimicrobial-resistance-and-antibiotic-usage-for-human-health-in-Australia.pdf

8 )
Mike Archer:
“At least 100 mice are killed per hectare per year (500/4 × 0. to grow grain.”

AAA:
This assumption is based on the article “One hundred years of eruptions of house mice in Australia – a natural biological curio”, which also mentions ” the ability of mice to increase rapidly to extreme population densities in cereal-growing areas of south-eastern Australia”. Mike Archer omits to say that density of population of mice and effectiveness of poisoning are two different things and that poisoning can be replaced by plant-based rodent repellents that works by emitting an odor that keeps mice and rats away.
read more:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.animalvisuals.org%2Fprojects%2Fdata%2F1mc&h=lAQFbZZvP

9)

Mike Archer:
“Average yields are about 1.4 tonnes of wheat/hectare; 13% of the wheat is useable protein. Therefore, at least 55 sentient animals die to produce 100kg of useable plant protein: 25 times more than for the same amount of rangelands beef.”

AAA:
The article has another notable weakness in that it only denominates the number of deaths by protein production. Protein is an important macronutrient but not the only thing we care about getting from our food. Indeed protein deficiency is exceeding rare amongst those wealthy enough to contemplate eating beef. If you denominated the number of lives lost by energy content, then wheat, being mostly carbohydrate, would come out looking a lot better than the 25 mice poisonings to each cow slaughter quoted in the article. The article is also basically irrelevant when judging the treatment of poultry or pigs.
read more:
http://robertwiblin.com/tag/animal-welfare/

10)

Not a directly relevant, but Mike Archer was the initiator of attempts to clone the Tasmanian Tiger, an animal extinct since 1936. Mike Archer has stated that he is obsessed with bringing the Tasmanian Tiger back to life via cloning. He has said that his obsession is going to push the research further and further until he and his team will have their first living Tasmanian Tiger clone.

How ironic is that? Intensive hunting, the introduction of farmers’ dogs and grazing into its habitat made me extinct.
Was this not enough to make Professor Mike Archer understand that humans are the main cause of destruction on this planet rather than vegans?
read more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Archer_(paleontologist)

It’s time to stop wasting energy in finding the absolute best rebuttal to all the biased, fabricated and false data given by individual “omnivores” and by the industry.
The amount of knowledge about the benefit of a plant-based diet for the humans and the environment is enough. It only needs to be shared among those who are willing to hear it without prejudice.
An industry based on the enslavement, torture and killing of animals is losing ground.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Debunking “Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands.”

  1. Are you saying that if we didn’t have to raise cattle for kill, we wouldn’t be investing too much grazing land and too much grain for their consumption alone? Well, if you’re going to slaughter them anyway, you might as well put up with the burden of animal husbandry, that’s the least you owe these animals and to the consuming public who patronize their slaughter and their meat. The arguments present a picture of the contradictions encountered in a culture of a society that demands to eat meat. Without the demand for meat, these arguments become academic. I say, you can’t have your meat and not put up with the cost. The point is to put an end to slaughter for meat; and as far as I’m concerned the author has only raised the issue of what is to be done with so much cattle that need to be fed when none are no longer being slaughtered. Don’t you suppose we would still have to give them reservations of land to feed on undisturbed? I think the author is a revisionist. And his points smack of dilettantism…he delights in showing up cattle for a burden on human society. Ending the slaughter of farm animals does not end the responsibility on human society to care for them. There is nothing in the bible that says we are to help ourselves to this animals as food; the bible instructs that we are to care for this animals, and caring for them outlives the time of their murder and slaughter.

    Like

  2. It is pretty pathetic that Mike Archer has got it so wrong. I cannot believe it is a case of ignorance either. Thanks for bringing all this to our attention as I like everyone else was wowed by his credentials and therefore willing to take his word as gospel.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s