"Why do we think we
need to appropriate all of the world's arable land to feed humans?"
|
Icelandic
horses |
We are all what we
think of as “individuals” in actuality living communities. Here
in Iceland we have permaculture course participants from this country
and Germany, the USA, Denmark, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, France,
Norway, Sweden, Indonesia, Bulgaria and Costa Rica. Each of us is
cross-fertilizing all the others with our microbiome — the spores
and microbes we carry from our bioregions and freely pass by contact
between skin, air, fluids and various surfaces we touch. Each of us
leaves as a new microbiome, slightly altered from and more diverse
than the one with which we arrived.
We also pick up and
incorporate new microbes from the environment of the place. We may be
ingesting bits and pieces that have already passed through the body
of an old Viking, or his horse, before being interred in the soil for
a time, later to find its way into our food and water and now leaving
with us to become part of the soil somewhere else. Ultimately, we all
come from stardust and are just continuously recycling.
Permaculture's
father, Bill Mollison, liked to tease vegetarians about their dietary
choices because he thought each of the arguments for going lower on
the food chain to be a bit suspect. “I didn't spend several million
years clawing my way to the top just to eat tofu,”
he once told us over lunch. We looked down at our tofu, awkwardly.
At the time we were
attending a permaculture convergence in Perth, Western Australia, and
the kitchen staff had been told to expect mostly meat-eaters.
Unfortunately there were three times more vegetarians amongst the
permies attending, meaning long lines for the vegie option and meal
servers experiencing a bit of crisis from lack of foresight.
|
Iceland: Grasslands thinly cover fields of broken lava; vast areas are suitable for grazing animals only. |
Robyn Francis, who
was one of Bill's earliest students and helped compile The
Permaculture Designer's Manual in the early 1980s,
breaks down some of the common ethical arguments. “Meat is just
concentrated chlorophyll on a calcium stick,” she says, borrowing a
pithy one-off realization from a former student.
|
Rotational grazing by pigs breaks up the sod and deepens the soil profile, making it cultivatable for vegetables and grains. |
The hackneyed vegan
line about not eating things with eyes or that try to run away may be
humorous but as we know from studies of sensory mechanisms and
“emotions” in plants, those have feelings too, know fear, seek to
preserve their lives, and would rather not be your dinner if offered
the choice. Moreover, they each have a microbiome made of lots of
tiny animals with eyes that try to get away.
Zoocentrism:
the relegation of plants to the bottom of a hierarchy of intelligent
life.
Robyn puts up a
slide from a study of Australian grain farming that shows how many
living things — reptiles, birds, ferrets, field mice — are
slaughtered each year per hectare of grain being harvested by
combines. In the study area of New South Wales, grain harvesters kill
25 times more animals per hectare than comparable pastures of cows
destined for slaughter. Put another way, the eyeball ratio of things
that try to get away is approximately 25:1 to the vegan side of the
ledger. In another slide, she explains that owning a sheepdog
consumes the equivalent resource costs of owning an S.U.V.. Don't
even get us started on house cats.
Let's face it. If
you are alive you only remain so by killing something else. This is
how nutrients cycle between rock, soil, plants, decaying matter,
insects, bacteria, fungi and animals. It is a group process, each of
us taking a role at some time as predator or prey. We might not like
to eat worms but in the end they are more than happy to eat us.
There is, in practice, no such thing as autonomy. Practically, there is
only a distinction between responsible and irresponsible dependencies."
— Wendell Berry, The Art of the Commonplace
|
Published on Facebook on August 27, this image
has 12,000 likes and 2877 shares, so fa |
Consider the larger
issue of global food supply. Humans now number 7 billion and will
continue to expand; energy, food and water supply permitting. A third
of Earth's land mass is suitable for agriculture but only about a
third of that is actually farmable for grains, vegetables, fruits or
the kinds of things that vegans eat. The other two thirds can't grow
vegies and may not have enough water for tree crops but can, with
careful stewardship and stocking rates, sustain edible animals.
Indeed, if you listen to the mob rotational grassland discussion
begun by Alan Savory, you might believe that only large herds of
grazing animals, bunched and moving, are capable of ecologically
restoring those kinds of damaged lands, re-sequestering the carbon
they once held, and restoring the hydrological and climate cycles to
pre-Anthropocene — the water and soil regime once built and
maintained by buffalos, mammoths, tigers and wolves.
Here is a point of
contention we take with that argument, and we welcome discussion. By
extension, we can say that if arable land is at a premium, then good
land with ample water should be devoted to grains, vegetables, fruits
and the kinds of things that vegans eat. Far more people can be fed
adequate and high quality proteins, carbohydrates and fats from that
land if we eat lower down the food chain because by passing crops
through animals we lose nutritional returns by large factors,
anywhere from ten to one in the case of poultry to forty to one in
the case of cattle. By the logic Robyn used, we should be growing
domestic animals exclusively on the marginal lands that cannot
support anything else. This eliminates Joel Salatin's farm in
Virginia and many of the high yield animal operations in North and
South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. No more Kobe beef or German Sauerbraten.
The argument for
eating farmed animals assumes we cannot feed the world if we removed
commercial animal agriculture and concentrated on plants. We can —
on just the portion of prime farmland that has good growing seasons
and plenty of water. An acre of organic, no-till, biochar-augmented,
nitrogen-fixing, non-GMO soybeans not processed into animal feed or
plastics can supply high quality protein equal to forty or more acres
of cattle. Eliminate animal agriculture on the best farmland and you
won't need to use the other 60% of Earths arable land for food
animals.
Why do we think we
need to appropriate all of the world's arable land to feed humans?
Producing food for
human populations in dry climates or with poor soils by importing it
from better land in better climates is a dicey proposition, given
that the globalization paradigm is now on life support and built on
Ponzi debt that is really a theft from our children. The world is
being forced by the inexorability of the physics of fossil energy to
relocalize, and quickly. To continue tracking the consumerist
exponential curve — of water use, soil loss, oil depletion, fishery
extinctions, population, and pollution — is sheer folly. Beyond
lies an Olduvai Cliff.
|
Roasted Icelandic Horse. Horse was the
traditional meat of German Sauerbraten. |
In a localized
world, absent catastrophically induced decline, we imagine that human population will gradually attrit to
something approximating the steady state balance between supply and
demand that indigenous peoples mastered. That was the old normal
before the last Ice Age, and it will likely go that way again in the
Age of Consequence.
Humans in local
societies may choose to balance their diets in whatever ways are most
efficacious for their climate and customs. Those habits will become,
or return, traditions. Some may be vegan, many likely not.
Comments
* Well, a question first... death of mice etc. aside, do you think it is possible to grow soybeans or other annuals sustainably? If so it might involve 'pasture cropping' or the multi-generational efforts of the Land Institute, but currently annuals cultivation seems to be destroying itself.
* I think it's a bit unfair to give a chicken a 1:10 turning-feed-into-flesh efficiency ratio and a cow a 1:40 because the chicken is an omnivore that eats pretty much human quality food. I don't think we should be eating much chicken -- it requires that prime one third of the arable land to grow it's food. A cow can use the other two thirds however and convert grass.
I've always thought it was related to the Disneyfication of animal consciousness that most of my TV generation grew up with. Our culture insulates us from death so completely that lots of extremely questionable points of view have arisen, among people who have never had to grow their own food or kill anything to eat.
I have to temper that kind of thinking, based on the examples of a few serious vegans who walked the walk, and managed to do pretty well without meat animals, and had a more reasonable basis for going that route...Scott Nearing comes to mind.
Diet For a Small Planet by F.M. Lappe has protein complementary details.
Hierarchical society I see as a source of madness, delusion, and planetary desecration. I make my choices accordingly.