Ethics of Food Production and Consumption - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 245

and chickens with such strange foods as wheat, maize, and soya and don't let them eat
grass, waste, and other stuff we throw away? Are pigs not just the animals par excellence
to devour waste in a sustainable way? When cows eat grass, which no man can eat, will
that not change the conversion?
Fairlie knocks down the stories about the environmentally negative conversion at
10 kg of grain to 1 kg of beef. Considering all the things a cow's body can offer, Fairlie
calculates animal husbandry restricted to the land a conversion of 2 to 1. In addi-
tion, some crops lead, through the stomachs of cows, to higher nutritional value than
directly through our stomachs (the nutritional value of animal protein is higher than
that of vegetables). Do not forget the fertilizing role of manure but also the value of
good fodder as peas, beans, and legumes for soil enrichment in the form of nitrogen
and phosphates. On top of this, when our meat eating reduces to zero, the environ-
mental impact becomes negative because food residues cannot anymore be eaten by
animals and there would be no organic fertilizer, so farmers would have to use more
chemical fertilizers (and produce more greenhouse gasses). Fairlie is equally harsh
on the bio-industry (factory farming), that refuses to give cows grass, and lets them
live, like the pigs, on an inappropriate diet. Factory farming assumes an increase in
meat production and does not review the resources available. Extensive farming would
imply more employment for grazing cattle ranchers in the South and less influx of job-
less people into overcrowded cities.
Eating meat from this ethical perspective is a “benign” luxury, and meat production
can happen in an environmentally sound way that could imply the reintegration of farm
animals in our society. Such a re-integration enriches the relationship between city and
countryside, and it is consistent with the ethical position of agrarianism and pragma-
tism. Farm animals play an important role in the distribution of forest and meadow,
dark and light, and also, seen from this consideration, they deserve a positive place in
the production system. Moreover, one should not forget the role of livestock in poor
countries as a form of capital and as an extremely efficient form of transport and energy
(Mehta-Bhatt and Picarelli, this volume).
This discussion illustrates the problem with a deontological approach to ethical
questions of consuming meat. The ethical conclusion from this position is absolutist—
killing animals for food violates an ethical premise of the rights of animals to life as
fellow creatures sharing the earth. Yet the premise of the vision—of vegetarians, and
of abolitionists like Regan and defenders of meat substitutes—is that farm animals are
unnecessary. These visions suggest an all-or-nothing solution in a complex field of cul-
tural and social relationships in which such a simple approach is not without draw-
backs. It will lead to a reduction in partners compared to the wealth of relationships we
might have with animals like pigs, cows, sheep, and chickens. Farm animals need not
be mistreated or even be slain for humane and enriching animal-human relationships.
There are many forms of animal and people friendly livestock management styles, one
is exempliied in the topic of Fairlie, and another one by Mahatma Gandhi, who is the
initiator of an alternative livestock system, in which animals are only kept for their