Vegan Diets: Animal-Friendly Or Animal-Killing?

The crop death argument is a common counterargument to veganism, which claims that more animals are killed during the cultivation of plants than in meat production. This argument is based on the idea that small animals such as rodents are killed by farming machinery and pesticides during the harvesting of crops, including wheat, corn, and soy, which are used in vegan diets. While it is true that animals are unintentionally killed during crop production, the argument fails to consider the indirect deaths caused by meat production.

Proponents of the crop death argument often compare the number of animals killed during crop harvesting to the number of animals directly killed in meat production. However, this comparison is flawed as it does not take into account the significant proportion of crops grown to feed livestock. Only around 55% of the world's crop calories feed humans directly, while 36% are given to livestock, including wheat, corn, and soy. This means that meat production is responsible for the deaths of both the animals being slaughtered and the animals killed during the cultivation of their feed.

Additionally, the argument assumes that pasture-fed cattle are the primary source of meat, when in reality, the majority of meat produced globally is grain-fed. Grain-fed animals require significantly more crops to produce meat, with up to 16 pounds of grain needed to produce just one pound of beef. This further increases the number of animals killed indirectly through meat production.

While it is challenging to determine the exact number of animals killed during crop production due to limited data, research suggests that a vegan diet still protects more life than a meat-eating one. A comprehensive study concluded that vegan diets require 75% less land than meat-based diets, indicating that a majority of crop deaths are linked to omnivorous diets.

In conclusion, while it is true that animals are unintentionally killed during the cultivation of crops, the crop death argument fails to consider the indirect deaths caused by meat production and the fact that a significant proportion of crops are grown to feed livestock. Therefore, a vegan diet still causes less harm and suffering than a meat-eating one.

Animals killed by farming machinery

Animals are unintentionally killed by tractors and other farming machinery. The number of animals that are killed by farming machinery is difficult to determine, but it is likely to be substantial. For example, it is thought that billions of mice are killed during wheat production. In addition to mammals, birds are also frequently killed by farming machinery.

The uncertainty around the number of animals killed by farming machinery is partly due to the fact that these animals are very small and mobile, and so are likely to run away from the machinery. This makes it hard to get an accurate count. Furthermore, research suggests that small animals are at higher risk of predation on pasture land compared to land where crops are grown.

However, it is important to note that most crops are grown as feed for animals. If everyone adopted a vegan diet, we could reduce total agricultural land usage by up to three-quarters. This would mean fewer animals being killed by farming machinery.

In addition to being killed by machinery, animals can also be poisoned by pesticides and other chemicals used in farming. This is another area where a vegan diet could help reduce animal deaths, as these chemicals are often used to protect crops that are grown to feed animals.

Animals killed by pesticides

Pesticides are applied in many forms and via various delivery methods, including forests, rangeland, and aquatic habitats. Their widespread use makes contact with pesticide residues inevitable for some wildlife. Pesticides may impact wildlife through direct or secondary poisoning, or through indirect effects on the animal or its habitat.

Short exposures to some pesticides may kill or sicken wildlife. For example, fish kills may be caused by pesticide residues carried to ponds, streams, or rivers by surface runoff or spray drift. Birds may also die off from foraging on pesticide-treated vegetation or insects, or by consuming pesticide-treated granules, baits, or seeds. These types of poisonings can generally be substantiated by analyzing tissues of affected animals for the suspected pesticide or by investigating impacts on biochemical processes.

Exposure of wildlife over an extended period of time to pesticide levels not immediately lethal may result in chronic poisoning. The most well-known example of a chronic effect in wildlife is that of the organochlorine insecticide DDT (via the metabolite DDE) on reproduction in certain birds of prey. DDT and other organochlorine pesticides such as dieldrin, endrin, and chlordane have been implicated in bird mortality resulting from chronic exposure.

Pesticides may also impact wildlife through secondary poisoning when an animal consumes prey species that contain pesticide residues. Examples of secondary poisoning include birds of prey becoming sick after feeding on an animal that is dying from acute exposure to a pesticide, and the accumulation and movement of persistent chemicals in wildlife food chains.

A pesticide may also affect wildlife in ways other than direct or secondary poisoning. Pesticides may impact wildlife indirectly when a part of its habitat or food supply is modified. For instance, herbicides may reduce food, cover, and nesting sites needed by insect, bird, and mammal populations, while insecticides may diminish insect populations fed on by bird or fish species. Insect pollinators may also be reduced, thereby affecting plant pollination.

The study of indirect effects is an emerging area and one that may be difficult to investigate. Not all pesticides have detrimental effects on all wildlife, nor do pesticide residues necessarily lead to serious consequences for wildlife. The potential impact must be evaluated by simultaneously considering the availability of the pesticide, or its degradation product(s), the toxicological properties of the pesticide, and the ecological characteristics of the exposure.

Animals killed by fertiliser run-off

Fertiliser run-off is a significant issue in agriculture, with consequences for both human health and the environment. When excess fertiliser is applied to fields, it can run off into local water bodies, causing eutrophication. This is when a body of water becomes overly enriched with nutrients, which can lead to oxygen depletion and the death of aquatic life.

Eutrophication and Algal Blooms

Fertiliser run-off can cause eutrophication, or excessive nutrient richness, in bodies of water such as lakes, ponds, springs, streams, or estuaries. This upsets the delicate balance of nutrients and disrupts the harmony of the aquatic ecosystem. One of the immediate consequences of eutrophication is the proliferation of algae, which thrive on the nitrates and phosphates found in fertilisers. Algal blooms can have toxic effects on humans and animals, causing skin and respiratory irritation, impaired liver or kidney function, and even death.

Impact on Marine Life

Fertiliser run-off can lead to oxygen depletion in aquatic environments, as algal blooms consume and use up the available dissolved oxygen, leaving little for fish and other organisms. This can result in fish kills and the creation of dead zones, where the water becomes uninhabitable for many animals.

Biodiversity Loss

Over time, algal blooms can choke out other species, leading to a loss of biodiversity. Lowered oxygen levels mean that fish, aquatic plants, and small animals can no longer survive, and the altered balance of species has significant impacts on the food chain and larger ecosystem.

Ocean Acidification

Fertiliser run-off contributes to ocean acidification, which interferes with the shell-building abilities of crabs and other organisms that require calcium carbonate. This can have far-reaching consequences for marine ecosystems.

Nitrate Poisoning

Nitrates from fertiliser run-off can contaminate drinking water supplies, posing a risk to human health, especially for infants. Nitrates can cause methemoglobinemia, or "blue baby syndrome," which can lead to headaches, fatigue, dizziness, confusion, seizures, coma, and even death.

Animals killed by eating insects contaminated with toxic pesticides

Insects are an important food source for many animals, including birds, fish, and other insects. Therefore, the use of toxic pesticides that contaminate insects can have far-reaching consequences for wildlife.

Neonicotinoids, also known as neonicotinoids, are a class of insecticides that are commonly used in agriculture. These pesticides are systemic, meaning they are absorbed by plants and incorporated into all their tissues, including pollen and nectar. Neonicotinoids are highly toxic to insects, including honeybees, and can remain in the environment for extended periods, contaminating water sources and leading to ecological repercussions.

A study published in PLOS One found that the use of neonicotinoids has made U.S. agriculture nearly 50 times more toxic to honeybees and other insects over the past 25 years. This increase in toxicity has been linked to the decline in bee, butterfly, and other pollinator populations, as well as bird numbers. The study also revealed that neonicotinoids accounted for 92% of the increased toxicity.

The impact of neonicotinoids on insects goes beyond direct lethality. Sublethal doses can impair reproduction, alter immune function, and affect navigation abilities in bees. Additionally, neonicotinoids can contaminate water bodies, leading to the decline of aquatic insect populations and affecting the food sources of fish and other wildlife.

The use of neonicotinoids has been banned or restricted in several countries, including the European Union and Canada, due to their harmful effects on pollinators and other wildlife. However, the manufacturers of these pesticides, such as Bayer-Monsanto and Syngenta-ChemChina, argue that when used according to the label, neonicotinoids pose a low risk to bees and other non-target organisms.

While the debate over the safety of neonicotinoids continues, it is clear that their widespread use has contributed to the decline of insect populations and disrupted food webs, with potential cascading effects on ecosystems and biodiversity.

Animals killed by mouse plagues

Mouse plagues have been occurring in Australia since the late 1800s, with the first recorded plague taking place around Walgett, New South Wales, in 1871. Since then, mouse plagues have been recorded in various parts of the country, including South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia. These plagues have had significant economic and health impacts, causing millions of dollars in damage to crops, livestock, and property, and raising concerns for human health due to the presence of infected rodents carrying diseases such as the bubonic plague.

During mouse plagues, mice can reach densities of up to 3,000 per hectare (1,200/acre), causing extensive damage to crops and agricultural machinery. They also destroy electrical insulation, vehicles, and buildings, and contaminate food and water sources. In some cases, mouse plagues have led to the evacuation of residents and staff from affected areas, such as the Wellington Correctional Centre in 2021.

The frequency of mouse plagues in Australia has been increasing, with the most recent plague occurring in 2020-2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. This particular plague cost farmers millions of dollars in crop losses and caused widespread concern due to the potential for disease transmission.

While mouse plagues have been a recurring issue in Australia, it is important to note that the impact on animal life goes beyond just mice. Other animals, such as rabbits, have also been affected by plagues in the country. Additionally, the use of pesticides and other control measures to manage mouse plagues can have unintended consequences for non-target species, including birds, reptiles, and insects.

The impact of mouse plagues on animal life in Australia is complex and multifaceted, involving not only the direct death of mice but also the indirect effects on other animal species and the potential for disease transmission to humans and livestock.

Frequently asked questions