Never-Born, Never-Killed Cows Don't Pass Gas Either
Published February 26, 2009 @ 01:47PM PT
Yes, it's true--"dead cows pass no gas." Know who else doesn't pass any gas? Cows who were never forced into existence just so that they could be brutally slaughtered in the first place.
There's nothing inconsistent about trying to stop the killing of animals for ethical reasons while also trying to stop the raising of animals (for the purpose of killing them) as part of the effort to curb global warming. The animal rights movement isn't just about stopping the actual killing; it's about stopping the system of injustice and exploitation that leads up to and involves the killing. The multitude of cows being exploited on farms aren't here because their population naturally exploded. Cattle exist in such large numbers, consistently, not because they're out there procreating like mad. There are so many cows and bulls in existence only because we force them into existence.
Drastically decreasing or eliminating people's consumption of cows' flesh and milk wouldn't mean forever killing and letting rot an endless population of cattle to stop them from producing methane. Animal agriculture is a business--it follows supply and demand just like every other business. And if demand dropped, what else would drop? The number of cows forcibly impregnated, the number of cows forced into existence. Really, it's simple: just because one generation of cows is forced through the system and ultimately slaughtered doesn't mean another generation has to be too. Contrary to popular belief, animal rights advocates are familiar with logic and realism, and we know that most cows currently in existence are going to die at the hands of humans much sooner than they naturally would have died. That doesn't mean we have to continue supporting the breeding and slaughtering of future cows.
And though many animal rights activists would say that they're not bothered by the idea of a future without cows--because living a life of misery and exploitation until enduring horrible transport and slaughter isn't better than never existing at all--many others are bothered by that idea. But the argument that there's no way even a small number of cows could be kept alive if animal agriculture ended (because humans wouldn't want to provide for, or allow to live, animals they weren't getting something tangible or financial out of) isn't supported. For example, visit any number of farm animal sanctuaries, and you'll see just that--cows and bulls who escaped or were rescued from the system, one way or another, and who are now being cared for and allowed to live out their lives happily by people who truly care about them.
The implication that people who want to kill and eat cows somehow care about cows more than the people who don't want them to be born into exploitation and cruelty and then violently slaughtered at a fraction of their natural life span would be laughable if it weren't so offensive and absurd.
No, our problems, climate and otherwise, "are not the fault of dumb animals." In fact, they're not the fault of intelligent, sentient animals either; yes, that's right--I won't call animals "dumb" just because they are who they are, just because they're not humans--who are clearly superior (after all, look what a great job we, the smart ones, have done keeping ourselves out of catastrophic disasters!). As I made perfectly clear in my post yesterday, I don't blame cows, and neither does anyone else advocating for them. Nothing negative that results from humans' insistence on raising and killing cows is cows' fault. It's the fault of humans who are doing to and with cattle what we are.
---
Stay tuned in the upcoming days for a thought-provoking guest post on "cattle culture," meat-eating, sustainability, and more from Farmer Harold Brown, who has far more experience and far greater knowledge on these topics than most others of us commenting on them do.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
Author
-
Stephanie Ernst is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull. In her advocacy, she works to challenge prevailing perceptions of animals, to show the connections between animal exploitation and other injustices, to help people see that animals are more like us than different, and to encourage compassionate, nonviolent living and eating.
I agree, Don't eat red meat!
Posted by leatrice brantley on 02/26/2009 @ 06:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
'Red meat' is a euphemism for the disassembled bodies of individual cows. You should notice that the foundational position being espoused here
Leatrice is the following:
Quote:
'The implication that people who want to kill and eat cows somehow care about cows more than the people who don't want them to be born into exploitation and cruelty and then violently slaughtered at a fraction of their natural life span would be laughable if it weren't so offensive and absurd'.
It follows, therefore, that the processes in which chickens, pigs, and fish are needlessly killed for our consumption should also end.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 02/27/2009 @ 05:26AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Don't eat animals period.
Posted by Becci . on 03/02/2009 @ 06:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Stephanie, thank you for your rebuttal.... I totally agree.
Posted by Sue G. on 02/26/2009 @ 06:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Contrary to popular belief, animal rights advocates are familiar with logic and realism"
Huh, that's weird!
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 02/26/2009 @ 06:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't understand Stephanie, are you trying to argue that it isn't logical to assume a non-existent state where an infinity of individual beings await their chance to be born; lined up in a row, like outside of a movie theatre.
Therefore, every time I don't have sex, or every time someones husband or wife is tired, they are in fact causing harm to all the as yet non-born beings floating around in prior existence.
That sounded perfectly logical when the animal exploitation industry and everyone else used it to justify bringing more animals into existence for the purpose of being our property.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 02/27/2009 @ 05:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have heard people argue that if we didn't eat cows - the earth would be over-run with them, and of course that's silly nonsense. Cows... are not "rabbits" - they sometimes take 2 to 3 years in-between coming into heat and calving another. This is part of what is so wonderous about bovines... the *rear* their offspring for long periods of time - indeed, it is a "family unit". And certainly sanctuaries and rescue organizations would care for the ones remaining (after they are no longer subject to being "commodities")...
And finally, if anyone has any doubt that forced breeding of these cows isn't a huge business - google "bull semen".
Posted by Bea Elliott on 02/27/2009 @ 08:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, cows would no longer be locked up, immobile, in crates. They'd be roaming free. So, in a sense, the earth *would* be over-run with them, at least compared to before.
Posted by Luella - on 02/27/2009 @ 09:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am consistently amazed by the pro-meat stance of the "sustainable" food blog.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 02/27/2009 @ 10:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh, wow. I didn't even realize there was a link to the "Sustainable" Food blog (didn't read the whole post). The author:
1. says "mmm chicken"
2. refers mindlessly to "dumb animals" (at least cows don't write senseless blog posts)
3. calls self "anti-animal rights" and yet claims to care about animals (because caring for animals is obviously about exploiting them on our own terms)
4. is offended about someone being offended about a snide at worst and irrelevant at best remark on the taste of an animal
This is really disturbing on so many levels - is this the fault of "dumb humans"? There is only one blog on change.org that I don't approve of - and I read a lot of them.
I shouldn't be reading posts on that blog. In fact, if I were you, I just wouldn't respond because that blogger honestly doesn't make any sense to me... at all.
Posted by Luella - on 02/27/2009 @ 01:49PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Somehow, reading the offending post on that other blog reminds me of the book review (and some of the comments) here, about the book Temple Grandin wrote. Let the reader understand.
The offending post warranted the responses it received both there and here.
Posted by Sue G. on 02/27/2009 @ 07:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That woman on that blog keeps deleting my posts (despite them not violating anything in the terms and conditions). Shows how little her argument hold up to anything.
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 02/28/2009 @ 06:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The 2006 UN livestock report that says livestock produces 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gasses is an excellent example of how easy it is to lie with statistics. For the full story of why those statistics are wrong, read http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3742 The brief explanation is that they counted greenhouse gas emissions from all types of farm activities, whether related to livestock or not. The statistics are further skewed by the fact that the vast majority of the greenhouse gases being averaged into the total are from Amazonian jungle deforestation, not all of which is for farming purposes. No deforestation is taking place in the US – in fact, quite the opposite (for more than a century there has been an continual increase in overall US forest cover). This reduces the UN figure from 18 percent of greenhouse gases to 12 percent. But the EPA contradicts even this with its own figure of 6 percent as the agricultural contribution to the US total, with the livestock-related portion being only 2.6 percent. Thus the amount any American farmer’s cow puts into the air is a tiny fraction of the publicly hyped figure. And consider this: if livestock farming disappeared overnight, vegetable and grain farming would have to increase to take its place, and since humans digest vegetables and grain less efficiently than meat, the replacement volume would be several times as much and growing and transporting it would create at least as much greenhouse gas as the activity it replaced.
Government laws and policies must be based on facts -- coldly, logically, and evenhandedly researched. To merely accept the word of wildly emotional political factions with political axes to grind or to react in a knee-jerk manner to popular enthusiasms driven to a frenzy by propagandized "statistics," without checking facts and doing your own research, is simply unacceptable. The duty of government is to look to the long-term benefit of our country, a process which involves holding firm against politics and emotionalism and remaining calm and sensible. As should the citizens also.
Posted by Bonnie Chandler on 02/28/2009 @ 04:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As pointed out in the other thread where you posted this remark, the Center for Consumer Freedom has been shown, over and over again, to be an utterly unreliable source of information. It's a propaganda machine. What, exactly, does either the UN or the research organization that just completed the other study supporting the UN's same findings have to gain from providing false information? Are you seriously accusing the UN and this organization of being "wildly emotional political factions with political axes to grind"? Where on earth is the evidence of that?
On the other hand, the CCF absolutely is a group with ulterior motives, and it has plenty ($$$) to gain by keeping its clients profitable--and by keeping consumers not only uninformed, but even misinformed as well as unhealthy.
And for the record, yes, 80 percent of Amazonian deforestation is a result of cattle ranching.
What is "simply unacceptable" is to try to discredit a credible study via a deceptive front group such as the CCF, just because the study reveals truths people don't want to hear.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 03/01/2009 @ 06:00AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"And consider this: if livestock farming disappeared overnight, vegetable and grain farming would have to increase to take its place, and since humans digest vegetables and grain less efficiently than meat, the replacement volume would be several times as much and growing and transporting it would create at least as much greenhouse gas as the activity it replaced."
Livestock farming isn't going to disappear overnight.
I Googled to see how much land it would take to feed a vegan vs. a meat eater. Most sites I found said 1/8. A couple said 1/6. One said 1/2. In any case, it takes a less land to grow food for a vegan. (I plan to grow my own this year, and have already started a few flats in my sunniest room so they'll be big enough to transplant in May. We'll see how that goes.)
Posted by Sue G. on 03/01/2009 @ 09:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
To Bonnie Chandler... I'm just curious - if your figures of "only" 12% were accurate - would that really make any difference to you still? I seriously doubt it.
Of course it takes a lot of vegetation to grow an animal. All that could be used instead to feed people. Not to mention the many millions of tons of animal flesh yearly that are not consumable due to "recalls". Eliminating animal flesh would end these recalls and put to better use the original grain.
Posted by Bea Elliott on 03/02/2009 @ 06:16AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you, Stephanie, for responding so reasonably and so beautifully to that other post. It made absolutely no sense and I was pretty surprised to see it on a site like this one. The idea that animals will suddenly start breeding like crazy and overrun the earth is SUCH a cliched, irrational argument--the very type of thing you'd expect to see from someone who doesn't really know much about how the industry works.
Posted by Becci . on 03/02/2009 @ 06:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Excellent point Becci. And I might recommend that if anyone thinks for a moment that these animals are breeding themselves - google "bull semen". Bull semen is one of the most profitable businesses in the cattle industry. Even though there has been a trade embargo with Irak - they've purchased over 15 million $ of the stuff from us. The federal government (USDA) also offers million dollar grants to help animal agriculture along with it's "science" for creating better lineages. They sell the semen in what they call straws - and even the technology to transfer the "product" is booming.
In fact, even documenting "scrotal circumfrance" in bulls is part of their operation:
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/top40_Content.asp?ContentID=294865
And they manage to the day to Plan Ahead For Heat Synchronization Methods For Replacement Heifers
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Cow_Calf_Content.asp?ContentID=294863
Read about the calves who are born deformed beyond imagination because of genetic manipulations:
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Cow_Calf_Content.asp?ContentID=294852
In fact, my very first blog was about how the industry imprisons and will destroy whole cow families if they don't "measure up".
http://beaelliott.blogspot.com/2008/08/flesh-science-cow-murder.html
And of course, the same mad science is used with horses, pigs, goats, etc. Farmed animals are not like "rabbits, cats or dogs". They don't have "litters" at a time. To even imagine that we would be "overrun" with them is absolute loonacy!
Posted by Bea Elliott on 03/03/2009 @ 06:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There is no scientific data that supports the assumption that livestock gases are harming our environment. Furthermore, farmers care for their animals 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Their top priority is the care they give their animals, they take great pride in caring for their animals.
Posted by Sandy Lynn Teeter on 03/08/2009 @ 11:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's widely understood that a vast majority of animals raised today are in confined situations and nearly everything is automated... The "care" that is given to animals is motivated by future profits - "farmers" need their animals to "perform" well in order to realize this financial gain.
It is not the life of the animal that benefits animal agriculture but the death... that's when the money is made. I realize that there's a great deal of "pride" in your business - however I think it is a false pride that is really based in shameful acts.
Posted by Bea Elliott on 03/18/2009 @ 06:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
OK lets say we all stop eating meat. We can't hunt either then right? Well what are we going to do with all the deer that run in front of our vehicles and kill us and them? Do we need to stop driving as well. My county had the highest deer-car accidents last year. They cause serious crop damage as well. We would be competing with deer and other wildlife for our food. Over-population is very unhealthy for wildlife. Our county also had a case of CWD. Deer are ruminant animals as well so imagine all the gases that the increased population will contribute? How many buffalo roamed the plains in the days of Lewis and Clark?
What do we do when us havesting our veggies kills hudreds of thousands of rabbits, mice, etc...?
Lets take care of our world as best as we can.
But remember that this world will pass away and there is only ONE who can do anything about that. You and I just need to be ready when that time comes.
Posted by Annie Link on 03/20/2009 @ 06:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
One of the first things we can do Annie Link, to control the deer that are "over populated" - is to stop breeding them! There are over 10,000 cervid breeding farms in the U.S. Deer and elk are bred (similar to conditions on factory farms) to provide an ever continuous supply of game for hunters. You are absolutely right that deer are ruminant and contribute to global gasses... So the best thing to do is to stop bringing deer (as well as cows) into existance in the first place.
Yes, harvesting veggies kills rabbits, mice, etc. But first, you must understand that the majority of vegetation is grown to (fatten) feed animals that are then eaten by man. If we eat the plant source first, it is more efficient - causing less harm in the long run. Further, there's a world of difference in accidental harm in harvested fields than deliberate malice (and slaughter) of billions of animals intended as "food".
Overall, opting for a plant based diet is best for all concerned - healthwise, for the planet's survival, sustainability and of course... the animals.
Posted by Bea Elliott on 03/29/2009 @ 06:49AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.