Thanks for writing this Hannah. No matter how you look at it, it's not even remotely possible to feed humans on wild animals. For that matter, it's not possible to feed 8+ billion humans with current levels of meat consumption with current agricultural systems for very long. Once the soils are depleted/eroded, aquifers are drained, and synthetic fertilizer and pesticides fail to produce, humanity will be forced to rethink agriculture and diets.
Carbon footprint is an absolutely crucial concept, as climate catastrophe is the most dire and urgent crisis in history. It will destroy civilization and most life on Earth if not solved immediately by radical changes in almost every aspect of global society.
But we certainly should consider both physical and emotional well-being of everyone, human and non, far more than societies ever have. Recognizing and healing the complex psychological illness that causes all our problems is necessary to solve anything.
The math would maybe get more interesting if we also assume we can stop using 80% of agricultural land to produce food for farm animals and rewild that land. That could significantly increase the wild population.
A combination of rewilding large areas of agricultural land with a vastly reduced meat consumption per person might get us to a more plausible balance.
The Uk also uses substantial amounts of land outside of the Uk both in terms of importing food and importing feed for animals.
Odd you should focus on mammals in nations that eat more fowl than fish or meat.
The last shoot I recall put 108 brace and a hundred other birds on roughly as many dinner tables, many of them burdened with garden produce as well.
We all labor beneath the weight of an eightfold population increase since the passage of the Corn Laws, but the simultaneous collapse of crop and livestock production in the UK today may incline many locavores to decline your advice and go a-hunting.
I suspect the country's deer mass exceeds that of edible birds.
Flying birds have a high energy life which makes them "inefficient" as a source of meat.
Whenever I eat "game birds", I am reminded of the advantages of chicken, which have been bred for eating (and egg laying), and have a high meat to bone ratio.
I think if we include wild fish in the calculations, it might drastically change the conclusion: from what I gather, the biomass of fish (0.7 Gt) is 7 times the biomass of livestock (0.1 Gt) and 100 times the biomass of wild mammals (0.007 Gt), so we could get somewhere this way (but, of course, we would have to replace meat with fish in our diet)
Except fisheries are collapsing because of industrial overfishing, destruction by fossil fuel waste, toxic runoff from chemical-industrial agriculture (especially meat), plastics, and other pollution, and climate catastrophe’s heating and acidification.
Already, 90% of the large fish in the sea have gone over the last 50 years.
Why are wild fish excluded from your analysis? It would be interesting to see the analysis with these and icreasing the carrying capacity of the oceans and wilderness. Sure we'll never get to current meat consumption but it would be interesting to see how far we could get.
> I’ve heard people recommend a “sustainable” cull rate of around 20% of the population.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. A rate is actions per time, but you don't provide a time frame. 20% per decade seems sustainable, 20% per day maybe not so much.
This is a useful thought-experiment. There are a few issues that make it too theoretical.
The amount of meat from "a deer" will depend on the species. A Muntjac (invasive alien and very damaging species in the UK) will yield about 4 or 5 Kgs of meat only, whereas a Red (native) or Fallow (naturalised) will yield a lot more.
Killing deer is an inefficient process. It generally involves a few hours of careful stalking or waiting and shooting the deer successfully, then recovering the carcass. People generally drive to get there, and a lot use very high-Carbon vehicles. In the UK you can't take a rifle anywhere by bicycle. But if we want woodlands to recover and expand naturally (far more effective than tree planting) then it is essential we protect them from deer overpopulation. It is also not good for the deer to become too numerous, as you get underfed, smaller individuals and more disease.
I don't think you have quite made the case, but I agree with the conclusion: it isn't a realistic way to feed a large number of people. That said, the public does not seem to have a good grasp of the ecological impact of deer and the need to do the work that natural predators used to. There is a lot of heat in the debate, and that makes it hard to progress it.
On the side of shooting there are people who want to use deer control as a bit of a smokescreen for other practices, such as driven pheasant shooting, that are damaging ecologically. On the side against shooting are people who think that a hands-off approach will let nature recover. Neither of these two extremes enable a clear debate, which has to get into the specifics of species' ecology and try to get decent data so that clear objectives can be achieved.
Hi Hannah ! Controversial and 'not your usual standard'.......vegetarian bias perhaps ?
I loved that 'mortality' bit : " But this article is not about the mortality of eating meat, which is a whole separate discussion.".....Yep ! mortality is basically 100% for each animal.....and the same for the person eating it's meat .....but it gets delayed a bit once said animal is digested .
Farmed meat is HEALTHY MEAT , less likely to contain nasty bacteria , worms and other parasites.......apart from the ATO and the charming treasurer.....but that's another subject !
Kangaroo meat ! Yep ! High protein , low fat , probably 'wormy' , certainly difficult to farm or to obtain. Generally they are shot for 'pet meat' rather than human consumption. Great fun if you enjoy shooting.....and you ARE removing a 'pest' that causes a lot of crop destruction ! Same goes for emus ! On the other hand , wild cats and wild dogs have no use beyond target-practice BUT are highly destructive of farm animals! Wild pigs , camels , goats , oxen , horses etc. are a road hazard and many destroy their own environment........all best eradicated ! BUT , again , mostly not edible
for humans ! Deer are farmed and highly prized as meat.......so never a problem in the wild !
However : A List of Current Consumer Preferences OF MEAT IN AUSTRALIA :
Chicken: The Unrivalled Favourite. Chicken has consistently held the top spot as the most consumed meat in Australia for over a decade. ...
Beef and Veal: A Staple Choice. ...
Pork: The Flavorful Alternative. ...[ a lot is imported !!! ]
Sheep Meat (Lamb): A Niche Delicacy. ...
Fish: A Growing Preference. [ Farmed and wild ! ] .
Is man meant to be vegetarian?..No; our guts aren't long enough, and our teeth don't quite fit the bill......There has been a TREND for females to eat more veg and less meat !
"studies consistently show that women are more likely to be vegetarian than men. This trend extends to veganism as well. Various factors contribute to this, including gender differences in motivation, attitudes towards animal welfare, and the perception of meat and vegetarianism."
"Pregnancy outcomes: In most populations, the male/female sex ratio of newborns is around 105:100. In a British study, the male/female sex ratio was 81.5:100 in vegetarians vs. 106:100 in omnivores.............. The 23% reduction in births of boys might be due to malnutrition."
MENTAL ILLNESS IS ON THE INCREASE ....as is vegetarianism ! and IS IT LINKED ?????
"..........the adoption of the vegetarian diet tends to follow the onset of mental disorders "
" It's important to note that women are generally more likely to experience depression than men, and there are also more female vegetarians than male vegetarians, which may influence the
findings. ".........................."our results are more consistent with the view that the experience of a mental disorder increases the probability of choosing a vegetarian diet, or that psychological factors influence both the probability of choosing a vegetarian diet and the probability of developing a mental disorder." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3466124/#sec19
HANNAH ! ............BE WARNED...........THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL !!!!!
Except that caring for our planet surely must include not being cruel to animals; and I challenge anyone to tell me that the industrial preparation and slaughtering process that cows, sheep and pigs endure isn't cruel, never mind the atrocious conditions that many animals live in.
To a large extent I blame Walt Disney's cartoon animal characters for this issue !
"Anthropomorphism is the act of attributing human characteristics, traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities, such as animals, objects, or even abstract concepts"
Harry......you are supposedly a competent human being capable of separating "fairy stories" and "fiction" from actual fact ! What you seem to be advocating is that humans kill no animals because it's cruel. No.....it's because they are a source of food and have been raised to fulfill that specific requirement.
In many cases animals are "culled" [ shot from a helicopter and their bodies left to rot ] to PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT from their predation and destruction !
Humans NEED to EAT ! .........Some animals will fulfill that need .
Those animals are well treated and raised in good conditons.
What you seem to be advocating is going against the very laws of nature !
Next you will want to stop lions and leopards eating springbok and orca killing seals
and penguins......... because they are so cute .................and yet that is evidently cruel !
Absurd and arrogant claim to know the “laws of nature”. Ridiculously bad logic and twisted attempt to reason. Unwarranted attack on another commenter based on something he DIDN’T say.
It is not “man”; it is people of all ages and genders.
Many if not most animals in chemical-industrial agriculture are not well-treated and the manner of their death, if visited on humans, would be recognized as unspeakably brutal.
Thank you, Abelard. I couldn't have put it better myself. And, of course, It's perfectly possible (as I can testify) to enjoy a perfectly healthy life and eat thoroughly enjoyable food without resorting to killing animals that have very similar sentience to our own.
Interesting article Hannah and clearly given there are no definitive numbers for the U.K. deer population you are having to use some “controversial / disputed” figures. However I would suggest that you are getting to the wrong conclusion as clearly the U.K. wild deer population could not replace the farmed meat consumption for the whole UK.
However, we are currently not even at the start line yet. What is clear is that we are not culling enough deer in the U.K. each year (I am being generalist here otherwise would be too long!) and one of the biggest impediments to achieving the right cull is that not nearly enough people are even starting to eat venison. The number of carcasses that go through Approved Game Handling Establishments (AGHE) annually is about 65-70,000 pa and then perhaps another 300,000 are sold direct to pubs / restaurants or for self consumption. However no one really knows how many deer are culled annually in the U.K. Assume 2m population is the right rough number then we should be culling at least double the current guesstimate of 365,000 which really all pints that a LOT more people could be eating venison than currently are and therefore those interested in trying wild meat should explore this avenue.
The next question is access to it. If you go to the local butcher it will be expensive however if you live in the countryside then ask around in the village and you will quickly find out where the local deer manager is and almost certainly you will be able to buy direct and for a substantially lower price than at the butcher. Equally go and look online at the Open Food Network (openfoodnetwork.org.uk) and along with a host of local producers you will also see listed a lot of individuals who are selling wild venison.
So in fact our wild deer population can sustain a lot more people eating venison and we should be encouraging as many people as possible to try this source of meat
Here in Australia, where meat consumption per capita is high, the main mammal foodstuffs are beef, lamb and pork. For the most part, the types of soil and native flora Australia has are generally not suitable for hoofed animals, and soil degradation is a major problem. At the same time thousands of kangaroos are killed each year to make way for pasture and crops. Some kangaroo meat is eaten, but only a tiny proportion of total animal consumption.
While eating kangaroo meat in place of other meat would not meet current demand, it would at least reduce the harmful impact on our land, reduce methane emissions from flatulent cows and use the otherwise wasted carcasses of kangaroos.
Of course, I would like to see the consumption of all animals cease, but this isn't going to happen. Kangaroo meat is, however, a healthier and tasty alternative.
Before the 17th century eating chicken even once a week was considered a luxury for everyday people. This is a fact that most food commentators tend to miss.
Also do you happen to know how much meat hunter gatherers tend to eat?
Almost all such societies got far more Calories from plant foods, mostly gathered by women. They should be called gatherer-hunters and that should be acknowledged and accepted, but early reports of them reflected the overwhelmingly male and hyper-masculine bias of “explorers”/conquerors, anthropologists, et al.
Trying to live just on gathered and hunted food would result in the deaths of well over 99% of humanity, as only a few people per acre—in the range of low single digits—can be sustainably supported by those methods. As it was then.
“Morality”? Instead of mortality?
Is the next logical step to write an article on cannibalism? ;-)
Thanks for writing this Hannah. No matter how you look at it, it's not even remotely possible to feed humans on wild animals. For that matter, it's not possible to feed 8+ billion humans with current levels of meat consumption with current agricultural systems for very long. Once the soils are depleted/eroded, aquifers are drained, and synthetic fertilizer and pesticides fail to produce, humanity will be forced to rethink agriculture and diets.
Thanks, Hannah, as always. It would be great if people moved away from supporting factory farming, no matter what they did instead.
It would be great if "suffering footprint" supplanted "carbon footprint" as something we cared about.
Carbon footprint is an absolutely crucial concept, as climate catastrophe is the most dire and urgent crisis in history. It will destroy civilization and most life on Earth if not solved immediately by radical changes in almost every aspect of global society.
But we certainly should consider both physical and emotional well-being of everyone, human and non, far more than societies ever have. Recognizing and healing the complex psychological illness that causes all our problems is necessary to solve anything.
https://www.mattball.org/search?q=climate
More relevant to this particular post:
https://www.nottheendoftheworld.co.uk/
The math would maybe get more interesting if we also assume we can stop using 80% of agricultural land to produce food for farm animals and rewild that land. That could significantly increase the wild population.
A combination of rewilding large areas of agricultural land with a vastly reduced meat consumption per person might get us to a more plausible balance.
The Uk also uses substantial amounts of land outside of the Uk both in terms of importing food and importing feed for animals.
Odd you should focus on mammals in nations that eat more fowl than fish or meat.
The last shoot I recall put 108 brace and a hundred other birds on roughly as many dinner tables, many of them burdened with garden produce as well.
We all labor beneath the weight of an eightfold population increase since the passage of the Corn Laws, but the simultaneous collapse of crop and livestock production in the UK today may incline many locavores to decline your advice and go a-hunting.
Do join them!
Would it change the conclusion much?
I suspect the country's deer mass exceeds that of edible birds.
Flying birds have a high energy life which makes them "inefficient" as a source of meat.
Whenever I eat "game birds", I am reminded of the advantages of chicken, which have been bred for eating (and egg laying), and have a high meat to bone ratio.
As always, Hannah - crystal clear and beautifully written.
Go Vegan!!!!
Very interesting post, thanks!
I think if we include wild fish in the calculations, it might drastically change the conclusion: from what I gather, the biomass of fish (0.7 Gt) is 7 times the biomass of livestock (0.1 Gt) and 100 times the biomass of wild mammals (0.007 Gt), so we could get somewhere this way (but, of course, we would have to replace meat with fish in our diet)
Except fisheries are collapsing because of industrial overfishing, destruction by fossil fuel waste, toxic runoff from chemical-industrial agriculture (especially meat), plastics, and other pollution, and climate catastrophe’s heating and acidification.
Already, 90% of the large fish in the sea have gone over the last 50 years.
Why are wild fish excluded from your analysis? It would be interesting to see the analysis with these and icreasing the carrying capacity of the oceans and wilderness. Sure we'll never get to current meat consumption but it would be interesting to see how far we could get.
> I’ve heard people recommend a “sustainable” cull rate of around 20% of the population.
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. A rate is actions per time, but you don't provide a time frame. 20% per decade seems sustainable, 20% per day maybe not so much.
This is a useful thought-experiment. There are a few issues that make it too theoretical.
The amount of meat from "a deer" will depend on the species. A Muntjac (invasive alien and very damaging species in the UK) will yield about 4 or 5 Kgs of meat only, whereas a Red (native) or Fallow (naturalised) will yield a lot more.
Killing deer is an inefficient process. It generally involves a few hours of careful stalking or waiting and shooting the deer successfully, then recovering the carcass. People generally drive to get there, and a lot use very high-Carbon vehicles. In the UK you can't take a rifle anywhere by bicycle. But if we want woodlands to recover and expand naturally (far more effective than tree planting) then it is essential we protect them from deer overpopulation. It is also not good for the deer to become too numerous, as you get underfed, smaller individuals and more disease.
I don't think you have quite made the case, but I agree with the conclusion: it isn't a realistic way to feed a large number of people. That said, the public does not seem to have a good grasp of the ecological impact of deer and the need to do the work that natural predators used to. There is a lot of heat in the debate, and that makes it hard to progress it.
On the side of shooting there are people who want to use deer control as a bit of a smokescreen for other practices, such as driven pheasant shooting, that are damaging ecologically. On the side against shooting are people who think that a hands-off approach will let nature recover. Neither of these two extremes enable a clear debate, which has to get into the specifics of species' ecology and try to get decent data so that clear objectives can be achieved.
Hi Hannah ! Controversial and 'not your usual standard'.......vegetarian bias perhaps ?
I loved that 'mortality' bit : " But this article is not about the mortality of eating meat, which is a whole separate discussion.".....Yep ! mortality is basically 100% for each animal.....and the same for the person eating it's meat .....but it gets delayed a bit once said animal is digested .
Farmed meat is HEALTHY MEAT , less likely to contain nasty bacteria , worms and other parasites.......apart from the ATO and the charming treasurer.....but that's another subject !
Kangaroo meat ! Yep ! High protein , low fat , probably 'wormy' , certainly difficult to farm or to obtain. Generally they are shot for 'pet meat' rather than human consumption. Great fun if you enjoy shooting.....and you ARE removing a 'pest' that causes a lot of crop destruction ! Same goes for emus ! On the other hand , wild cats and wild dogs have no use beyond target-practice BUT are highly destructive of farm animals! Wild pigs , camels , goats , oxen , horses etc. are a road hazard and many destroy their own environment........all best eradicated ! BUT , again , mostly not edible
for humans ! Deer are farmed and highly prized as meat.......so never a problem in the wild !
However : A List of Current Consumer Preferences OF MEAT IN AUSTRALIA :
Chicken: The Unrivalled Favourite. Chicken has consistently held the top spot as the most consumed meat in Australia for over a decade. ...
Beef and Veal: A Staple Choice. ...
Pork: The Flavorful Alternative. ...[ a lot is imported !!! ]
Sheep Meat (Lamb): A Niche Delicacy. ...
Fish: A Growing Preference. [ Farmed and wild ! ] .
Is man meant to be vegetarian?..No; our guts aren't long enough, and our teeth don't quite fit the bill......There has been a TREND for females to eat more veg and less meat !
"studies consistently show that women are more likely to be vegetarian than men. This trend extends to veganism as well. Various factors contribute to this, including gender differences in motivation, attitudes towards animal welfare, and the perception of meat and vegetarianism."
"Pregnancy outcomes: In most populations, the male/female sex ratio of newborns is around 105:100. In a British study, the male/female sex ratio was 81.5:100 in vegetarians vs. 106:100 in omnivores.............. The 23% reduction in births of boys might be due to malnutrition."
MENTAL ILLNESS IS ON THE INCREASE ....as is vegetarianism ! and IS IT LINKED ?????
"..........the adoption of the vegetarian diet tends to follow the onset of mental disorders "
" It's important to note that women are generally more likely to experience depression than men, and there are also more female vegetarians than male vegetarians, which may influence the
findings. ".........................."our results are more consistent with the view that the experience of a mental disorder increases the probability of choosing a vegetarian diet, or that psychological factors influence both the probability of choosing a vegetarian diet and the probability of developing a mental disorder." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3466124/#sec19
HANNAH ! ............BE WARNED...........THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL !!!!!
REGARDS , TREVOR.
Except that caring for our planet surely must include not being cruel to animals; and I challenge anyone to tell me that the industrial preparation and slaughtering process that cows, sheep and pigs endure isn't cruel, never mind the atrocious conditions that many animals live in.
To a large extent I blame Walt Disney's cartoon animal characters for this issue !
"Anthropomorphism is the act of attributing human characteristics, traits, emotions, and intentions to non-human entities, such as animals, objects, or even abstract concepts"
Harry......you are supposedly a competent human being capable of separating "fairy stories" and "fiction" from actual fact ! What you seem to be advocating is that humans kill no animals because it's cruel. No.....it's because they are a source of food and have been raised to fulfill that specific requirement.
In many cases animals are "culled" [ shot from a helicopter and their bodies left to rot ] to PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT from their predation and destruction !
Humans NEED to EAT ! .........Some animals will fulfill that need .
Those animals are well treated and raised in good conditons.
What you seem to be advocating is going against the very laws of nature !
Next you will want to stop lions and leopards eating springbok and orca killing seals
and penguins......... because they are so cute .................and yet that is evidently cruel !
Trevor,
Absurd and arrogant claim to know the “laws of nature”. Ridiculously bad logic and twisted attempt to reason. Unwarranted attack on another commenter based on something he DIDN’T say.
It is not “man”; it is people of all ages and genders.
Many if not most animals in chemical-industrial agriculture are not well-treated and the manner of their death, if visited on humans, would be recognized as unspeakably brutal.
Thank you, Abelard. I couldn't have put it better myself. And, of course, It's perfectly possible (as I can testify) to enjoy a perfectly healthy life and eat thoroughly enjoyable food without resorting to killing animals that have very similar sentience to our own.
The number of blue-handled screwdrivers is also increasing. Is that the reason for the increase in vegetarians?
Your post is without evidence or sense. It is despicable. Please delete it and apologize.
Interesting article Hannah and clearly given there are no definitive numbers for the U.K. deer population you are having to use some “controversial / disputed” figures. However I would suggest that you are getting to the wrong conclusion as clearly the U.K. wild deer population could not replace the farmed meat consumption for the whole UK.
However, we are currently not even at the start line yet. What is clear is that we are not culling enough deer in the U.K. each year (I am being generalist here otherwise would be too long!) and one of the biggest impediments to achieving the right cull is that not nearly enough people are even starting to eat venison. The number of carcasses that go through Approved Game Handling Establishments (AGHE) annually is about 65-70,000 pa and then perhaps another 300,000 are sold direct to pubs / restaurants or for self consumption. However no one really knows how many deer are culled annually in the U.K. Assume 2m population is the right rough number then we should be culling at least double the current guesstimate of 365,000 which really all pints that a LOT more people could be eating venison than currently are and therefore those interested in trying wild meat should explore this avenue.
The next question is access to it. If you go to the local butcher it will be expensive however if you live in the countryside then ask around in the village and you will quickly find out where the local deer manager is and almost certainly you will be able to buy direct and for a substantially lower price than at the butcher. Equally go and look online at the Open Food Network (openfoodnetwork.org.uk) and along with a host of local producers you will also see listed a lot of individuals who are selling wild venison.
So in fact our wild deer population can sustain a lot more people eating venison and we should be encouraging as many people as possible to try this source of meat
Or predators should be reintroduced as the only way to restore a remotely natural ecosystem.
Here in Australia, where meat consumption per capita is high, the main mammal foodstuffs are beef, lamb and pork. For the most part, the types of soil and native flora Australia has are generally not suitable for hoofed animals, and soil degradation is a major problem. At the same time thousands of kangaroos are killed each year to make way for pasture and crops. Some kangaroo meat is eaten, but only a tiny proportion of total animal consumption.
While eating kangaroo meat in place of other meat would not meet current demand, it would at least reduce the harmful impact on our land, reduce methane emissions from flatulent cows and use the otherwise wasted carcasses of kangaroos.
Of course, I would like to see the consumption of all animals cease, but this isn't going to happen. Kangaroo meat is, however, a healthier and tasty alternative.
Before the 17th century eating chicken even once a week was considered a luxury for everyday people. This is a fact that most food commentators tend to miss.
Also do you happen to know how much meat hunter gatherers tend to eat?
Almost all such societies got far more Calories from plant foods, mostly gathered by women. They should be called gatherer-hunters and that should be acknowledged and accepted, but early reports of them reflected the overwhelmingly male and hyper-masculine bias of “explorers”/conquerors, anthropologists, et al.
Trying to live just on gathered and hunted food would result in the deaths of well over 99% of humanity, as only a few people per acre—in the range of low single digits—can be sustainably supported by those methods. As it was then.
17th century? 1950s and 1960s when I was a kid in England.