I have been having an argument with a chap who seems to have the idea that the production of grass fed beef causes less harm per serving than tofu. Supposing we focus on harm to animals caused directly by the production process or from predation as a result of the production process, as opposed to environmental issues, does anyone have any idea how to go about resolving this question?

i think this a very important and interesting topic but unfortunately i dunno really how to go about it....

but wouldnt the negative affects of producing tofu be environmental?

I don't really know either. Could you get a more detailed claim from the person you've been talking to? What kind of harm is he talking about, and what's his evidence? It seems like he should bear the burden of evidence...

Well, he's talking about collateral deaths from soybean production. That would be from tilling, harvesting, pesticides, and also deaths from predation when the crop cover is removed. He hasn't really been specific about how high he thinks the collateral death rate is but he thinks the only harm involved in grass-fed beef production is the slaughter of the cattle, and he thinks that it's obvious that this involves less harm. Davis estimated the collateral death rate from crop production at 10 per hectare. I think he was basing his conclusions on a study involving alfalfa. Peter Singer has remarked to me in an email communication that methane emissions from grassfed beef production are higher than for grainfed, and Vegan Outreach has directed me to Matheny's article. Also some people say that people who produce grassfed beef must kill predators to protect the cattle.

That's about all I've got at the moment. I've emailed Vegan Outreach, Peter Singer, and Gary Francione and got responses from the first two and I have done some googling for internet debates about it. He has emailed a grassfed beef producing farm and says he will get back to me with what they say about it.

Rupert wrote:and Vegan Outreach has directed me to Matheny's article.

Yep, it's a great read: "Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism From Steven Davis's Omnivorous Proposal."

Unfortunately, Matheny assumes that wild animals have lives worth living, while I tend to assume the opposite. Therefore, I would provisionally favor free-range beef farming over soybeans. From page 510:

As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land as crop production to yield the same amount of food. Thus, as long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres, a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.

forgive my total ignorance but do you need to use pesticides on pasture that cows will eat?

cause if not, and if you don need to use it in tofu production and if insects can suffer then he could be right

Interesting paper Alan. Just to summarise my understanding of it to Felicifia. It is a response to Steven Davis, who had suggested that farms for the production of crops e.g. tofu kill more animals than farms for grazing of e.g. cows. The main interesting aspect of his calculation is that a tofu farm would more thoroughly purge the farmland of wild animals than the grazing land. Gaverick identifies the main mistake here: one hectare of tofu farm feeds more than one hectare of cow grazing land. Ten times more. So the tofu farm is purging less wild animals than the cow grazing land after all.

How should 10 hectares be used:
a) 1 tofo + 9 wild; or
b) 10 cows + 5 wild (this wild population cohabits the grazing land)

Alan, it seems to me that positively valuing wild animal life accentuates Gaverick's point, but is not necessary for his conclusion. Like you, I think that wild animal life is likely of negative value. But so is the cow's grazing life. Depending on how bad, and how numerous the cows and wild animals' lives are, you and I could yet support Gaverick's position...

I lived in a free-range area in which cattle roamed across my property. It is easy to imagine cows living in paradise eating grass all day and being happy, but there can be complicating factors. Keep in mind that most grass-fed cattle are sent to feed lots to gain weight before being butchered.

I live in a free-range state in USA, meaning that cattle can roam anywhere that is not enclosed by a fence. In rural areas, they roam across the highway and it is the driver's fault if cattle are run over. In my area, usually 10 or more cattle were killed on the main road every year, although recently fences were installed to keep them off the road (speed limit 70 mph = 112 kph).

I also saw a dead cow a couple weeks ago that appeared to have broken its leg in a cattle guard (the metal things that are supposed to prevent cattle from crossing boundaries). Last year I found a cow dead in a stream from unknown causes (maybe from calving). There are also free-range sheep in this area, and I have seen remains of sheep that were eaten by coyotes (verified by a conversation with the sheep herder). I'm not sure if the coyotes get any of the calfs. There is also a risk of rattle snakes, falling into mine shafts (there are many mines in this state), stepping on metal pieces of junk, and other such injuries. I'm not sure of the differences between the lives of wild animals and grass-feed beef.

There is a documentary called King Corn that showed the intestinal ulcerations in cattle that are fattened at feed lots where they eat high-density food that literally kills them if they stay in the feed lot too long. Also note that grass fed beef are loaded into cattle cars and shipped either to the feed lot or the slaughter house. I suspect that the trip can be traumatic, and I have also seen truckers park overnight along the highway with a full load of cattle--adding to the trauma of transportation. I have heard cattle jostling in the cattle car all night in a way that suggests they are not sleeping but perhaps under stress (I typically do not hear them screaming or making other such noises). If you don't know the biology of cows (versus bulls), you might not know that cows packed tight in a cattle car would most likely urinate on the next cow.

At a local dairy farm, calfs are kept in tiny cages (like the veal cages) for some time (8 weeks?) and then shipped to other places. Perhaps some are killed for veal, perhaps some find their way to grass-fed ranches, meaning that a free-range cows might not have started life on the range. Cattle are a commodity and are bought and sold like any other property, and their provenance is not always known.

RyanCarey said:

So the tofu farm is purging less wild animals than the cow grazing land after all.

I'm not sure I can verify or disconfirm the calculations, but the number of wild animals that cattle displace would be substantially dependent on the prior conditions of the land. If the land had been forest and it was raised to become grassland for cattle, then much habitat would be lost. In some places, habitat had already been minimal or wildlife had already been destroyed before cattle were introduced, so it would be difficult to count the loss of wildlife. Ranchers in my area have been accused of killing certain types of trees (e.g., juniper) that inhibit grass growth, but I'm not sure of the extent of this or what this means in terms of habitat. Cattle in my area are put on the range in the spring and return to the ranch in the winter (or go to feed lots), so the calculation becomes more complicated.

Thanks for those contributions, rehoot. It's great to have someone with so much firsthand experience.

Here's a working link to Gaverick's discussion piece, Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism From Steven Davis's Omnivorous Proposal; Brian's link above is outdated.