Any measureable effect of veg*ism on animal well-being?

[Ellen Forradalom]

Veganism as compassion for animals appeals to me, but I am also interested in knowing what's most effective in promoting their welfare. Has anyone investigated whether veganism has a noticeable impact on demand for animal foodstuffs? At what rate would meat- and/or animal-free diets have to be adopted in a population to have an effect on the animal-food economy?

[LeftyMom]

1. The number i've seen is 96 animals a year on average

but that only factors in the number a person isn't eating, the numbers saved by, for example, boycott of animal tested products would be harder to quantify.

As for the critical mass to start changing things? I guess it would depend on the measure one used for that change. I saw an article a while back (I can't find it now but don't have a lot of time to look while I'm getting ready for work) about the demand for some animal product (I want to say it was eggs but I'm not sure) leveling off after years of increase in the UK, which was attributed to the number of vegetarian and vegan consumers. They don't have a whole lot more than there are in the US, but they tend to be a more demanding bunch and as a result the large mainstream grocers tend to do more labeling of veg/vegan items and to carry more cruelty-free goods. But that's still the first baby steps to a society that treats animals with any respect at all, we all have a long way to go.

[Ellen Forradalom]

2. Perhaps persuading a larger of people

to curtail their consumption of animal goods would do as much to drop demand than a smaller group of committed veg*ans. Is it more doable?

[Elad]

3. There's no reason you can't do both

I always try to encourage like-minded and/or interested parties to "curtail their consumption," but that doesn't mean that I can't boycott animal products myself, and try and help people who have the potential to reach the same point as me to become fully veg*n.

I cannot in good conscience consume animal products for myself, but it's not an either/or situation. Just because I'm vegan doesn't mean I can't encourage an omnivorous friend to just eat less meat, if that's the stage that that person is at.

[Ellen Forradalom]

4. I did not mean to imply

that they were mutually exclusive in any way.

A person not interested in giving up meat may yet be persuaded to exert pressure on corporations and legislators on behalf of animals. Animal welfare is a step towards animal rights.

Reducing demand can help with some of the most egregious abuses of animal agriculture, which arise from the need for production in mass quantities.

[Elad]

5. I see, this debate is an interesting one and in my experience, among

the animal rights/animal welfare/veg*n community, it is a very heated, controversial and still largely unresolved debate. I'll play devil's advocate here, just for the sake of debate.

While welfare reforms may reduce the suffering of the animals that are being exploited against their will, it may, in the big picture, actually do more harm than good. For example, if people are convinced that certain meat, eggs, dairy etc are from "humanely" raised animals (and I should note that this term is *highly* subjective), then they may consume more of these products, as opposed to consuming less or even none of these products. The "humane" description allows consumers to feel good about their decision to kill/exploit an animal unnecessarily. It lets them off the hook, and therefore, leads to more animals dying as the demand increases.

If it is wrong to unnecessarily (I use the term unnecessarily because, as every living, healthy vegan proves, humans do not need animal products to live or be healthy) kill another creature for food, or to exploit it for food, then it is no less wrong if that animal is treated well before its death. Slavery is slavery, and if you treat the slaves well it doesn't mean it's not slavery.

[flvegan]

6. Since Elad has taken the devil's advocate route, and done so very well

I'm going to try to give the other side. I have, btw, been called a "welfarist" with the same disdain that a fur-wearing veal-chomper has been dismissed, from my colleagues in the AR community. So, here we go...flvegan the welfarist vegan apologist...

Elad stated:

"While welfare reforms may reduce the suffering of the animals that are being exploited against their will, it may, in the big picture, actually do more harm than good. For example, if people are convinced that certain meat, eggs, dairy etc are from "humanely" raised animals (and I should note that this term is *highly* subjective), then they may consume more of these products, as opposed to consuming less or even none of these products. The "humane" description allows consumers to feel good about their decision to kill/exploit an animal unnecessarily. It lets them off the hook, and therefore, leads to more animals dying as the demand increases.

If it is wrong to unnecessarily (I use the term unnecessarily because, as every living, healthy vegan proves, humans do not need animal products to live or be healthy) kill another creature for food, or to exploit it for food, then it is no less wrong if that animal is treated well before its death. Slavery is slavery, and if you treat the slaves well it doesn't mean it's not slavery."

Groovy...

According to the FAO, in 2000, 45 BILLION animals were killed for food. That's meat. That doesn't take into account the battery hens for eggs, the dairy cows in rape racks making milk (and subsequent veal calves) that would ultimately be turned into low grade ground beef or dog food. Downers aren't included, nor is bycatch (marine life "accidentally" caught in nets). Lastly, neither are animals trapped and killed for reasons of which food is not the first concern, or, not done legally (sharks for sharkfin soup, whales for "scientific" purposes, etc). SO, since the Vegan Army isn't coming any time soon to free these 45 billion animals from their situations, reducing their suffering seems like it would be a good place to start. It's immediate, and it's something the avg Joe can relate to and buy in to. This "welfare" only does more harm than good to the egos of animal activists. Nobody is going to consume 2 dozen humane eggs rather than the 4 they might have had otherwise. Why? Because they didn't care to begin with and aren't going to up their intake because they feel relieved that they're being more kind. The average consumer doesn't care about feeling good about their meat purchases, and suggesting that more animals will die because they're "off the hook" is lunacy.

"Humane" farming can help open the minds of the end user. If they make a conscious decision to buy food that is better for the animal, then they've realized that there's a problem. It's a first step.

I always come back to stories in personal experience. Several years ago, I was at a greyhound protest at Derby Lane in St. Pete, Florida. I'm one of the vegan heavy hitters, so some folks gravitate to me. This young couple, new vegans, total "no compromise" types, start bitching about some of the other protesters. These folks were protesting the track, the treatment of the dogs, but wearing leather and would likely go get a Big Mac after we were through. They didn't want to stand near them, didn't want to talk to them. Hated that they were there. The guy tells me that he wishes they weren't there because they lessen our "purity" in the protest. I told him that I'd be happy to hold his sign while he went to the kennels to sell that line of shit to the dogs. What would the animal say to the support? Like the battery hen would tell the vegetarians to fuck themselves because they aren't a vegan?

Yeah, okay...whatever.

Several years ago, we eliminated the usage of gestation crates in Florida. I worked hard on this "welfarist" movement. No more hog farms of this type in the state anymore. The AVA is moving against veal crates. Lots of big dawg vegans and AR organizations working on that one.

Honestly, though, I'm an unwelcome participant to a number of folks in this movement. Idiots and assholes I call them, hell bent on their agenda and not thinking of the animals subject to it.

That's okay, though, because it would seem that "welfarist" deserves some validity in this movement. My balaclava and boltcutters have many miles on them, and Rodney Coronado thanked me personally for my liberation efforts. Most of my critics wouldn't know the difference between balaclava and a pastry dessert.

So yes, reducing the intake of meat, etc for even one meal a day, or buying "humanely" is a big, incredible step towards the betterment of animals raised for food, regardless. Why? Because it matters to the animals currently in the system. We, as activists need to forget what we want and embrace what they, the animals, need...right now.

[Tumbulu]

7. I agree

I have a small organic farm. A few of my organic farmer friends try very hard to produce and sell to their veggie customers eggs from happy really free range hens. This is not at all cheap. The break even price is about $6/dozen. Which people pay gladly for as they never seem to have enough eggs to sell. But that is OK, they have enough chickens to care for and that is that. How can one of these eggs which came from a healthy happy hen be compared with an egg from a torture chamber?

The eggs from the hens that roam all around my farm and eat only the grain that I grow on my farm and all the goodies they find produce eggs that probably cost me over $1 each. The thing is that hens not bred for battery egg production molt and thus stop laying for months in the fall. And many hens don't lay eggs during the winter either. This is so good for them to have a break from the egg laying as a hen can live to be 12 years old if they have a life protected from predators. I love these hens. They help my farm enormously. I get to eat these fabulous eggs that they produce and have far fewer flies and they alert me to rattlesnakes. They are a big part of the life on the farm.

My neighbors who sell at the farmers markets are crazy about their hens. These $6/dozen eggs are from hens that live long lives and are not eaten when they stop producing. Animal torture is all about producing food the cheapest way possible. Food produced in cheap ways (animal or vegetable origin) is all polluted and tainted in my book.

When I see people who are overweight I see people whose body is starving for real nutrition. Nutrition that cannot come from polluted food of any kind. It takes really really hard work to produce food sustain-ably (it costs more) . With animal products (milk, eggs, etc) this high cost is magnified.

[flvegan]

8. Great post, Tumbulu.

Thank you for the perspective you've given us here.

Can you, for the record (and I swear I'm NOT making a point in my/our favor about it) define, from what you have stated, what "happy really free range hens" really is? I think folks sometimes miss the point on this.

Oh, and btw...WELCOME TO DU!!!!!!

[Tumbulu]

9. I'll try

Thanks for the welcome fivegan. Here is my definition- nothing official, just my view.

I consider really free range to mean outside roaming around. Not in a cage or fenced structure- with some exceptions. A big fence around a large area to keep predators out. Here are some pictures of what I mean. I saw a "free range" chicken place that had about 1000 chickens in an area of about 1/4 of an acre. It stank, the birds were free to roam and could go into coops at will and were mixed breeds. No signs of fighting. But how could they be happy in all the stink? Too many birds in a small area for me to believe they were happy. Now maybe birds do not smell like I do, but then again I said it was my definition. Now my neighbor has the chicken tractor system. They have small mobile coops with about 30 hens who are protected from predators by a portable electric fence. These 30 hens have about an acre of land to graze on and they graze and scratch and put the former organic veggie crop back into the soil. Then after they have helped recycle all the goodies from this acre they are moved to the next finished acre of veggies. They get moved every few days. This way they always have a clean place to scratch, are not at all crowded and are protected from predators. They can go in and out of their coop at will and there is no stink and they do not seem crowded to me. The hens are part of the soil fertility program and their worth is not based on egg production, but on soil vitality and thus when they stop laying eggs they are not worthless. They are still a big help.

I saw another different kind of happy free range situation at the Eco Farm conference last year that inspired me a lot. This woman rescued hens from battery farms. These hens cannot do well truly free as they do not know how to hide from hawks and are not good walkers. She says that it takes six months for them to be able to walk in a normal way. She has build elaborate structures that are like huge (20 ft tall with trees inside) aviaries. She is in a cold place and heats the coops in the winter, and thus can grow tropical fruits in the chicken run areas. These hens do not roam totally free, but they are not crowded and they can roost up in these trees. She helps pay for this by selling organic local papayas and guavas to her egg customers. She has slowly grown but is as large as she can be with her own labor and volunteer help and the money from the eggs.

I have a big fence around a 3 acre area for my 9 hens. I close them in the coop at night and let them out in the morning to roam. If I am going to be gone for the day I keep them in a smaller enclosure ( about the size of a suburban yard) where it is extra safe, as a neighbors dog can sometimes break through my regular fence.

So, my definition of happy free range includes ample space and clean ground- not chickens roaming around in small areas that stink. I also include not killing them when they stop producing eggs. But as I said, this is my definition only.

[flvegan]

11. Some of those chickens have more space than most people do.

Good definition. I think that you've really summed up what "free range" means, or at least what it should mean.

9 hens on three acres. Want to adopt me?

[Tumbulu]

12. Of course!

[Ellen Forradalom]

10. Thank you Tumbulu

for the informative post.

I too have made it a priority to pay more and eat less of quality food.