Philosophical Vegan Forum

Okay I'll try to summarize what I wrote that got deleted by a combination of crappy internet connection where I am and the lack of my computer so I can only use my phone at the moment which resulted in the deletion of a wall of text without it being saved by a draft.

Basically I found a post that challenged my ideals: according to it, raising ducks and fish in rice fields can increase rice production by as much as 50% compared to "regular" rice production thanks to pest and plankton eating which is pooped out as fertilizer for rice plants, plus better flow of water and thus of nutrients.

I don't like raising animals for human benefits because of the inherent risks of abuse but I don't want to reject something just because it doesn't fit my ideology either, if the benefits of using animals are particularly notable I can consider it as an ethically acceptable option. In this specific example it basically means less land and chemical inputs for the same amount of food which sounds great. But the post's illustration mentioned meat of duck and fish as co-products of this increased rice production which is the part I really don't like. Even though much of the protein and energy ducks and fish get probably comes from pests and plankton respectively, the illustration still mentioned feed for these animals, so if we want them to let live we can only rely on the benefits to rice production for the cost of animal feed to not outweigh the benefits, especially when you consider that ducks and fish probably have a fairly good feed to conversion ratio due to their small size. I'm also pretty sure there are welfare problems with preventing ducks from flying, unless there are races that are unable to fly without needing to be mutilated.

Basically this post is about the broader scope about animals that can benefit plant farming by providing services that increase plant productivity to a greater extent that you need to feed them from sources outside the agrosystem they're part of, the most common example being commercial bee operations to pollinate some crops. But if we want to have this kind of animal use remotely compatible with animal ethics then it means we can't kill them for food and as a result only rely on their plant production services to make up for their feed inputs; again, pollinator bees fit that because they thrive on pollen and I'm sure they don't need additional feed at all (unlike bees raised for honey) but even then it's ethically problematic because moving beehives is not good for the thriving of their residents. So I can only wonder about the risks of abuse to ducks, and considering we're talking about a vertebrate with a much bigger brain and emotional abilities than an insect, not respecting duck welfare is more ethically problematic than doing so for bees. So for this kind of animal use to be compatible with animal ethics there would be a need for strong regulation of animal welfare... In our world where animals are currently killed by billions after a miserable life in factory farming I can't imagine such abuses not being highly prevalent (see Unnatural Vegan's video about "humane" farm coverage), maybe they could happen rarely enough in a less speciest world to be acceptable?

Also for rice itself I personally rarely ever buy it myself because of its underwhelming nutritional profile (low protein and nutrient density by calorie) as well as methane production, and believe it's generally better to eat other cereals instead. But as it's such a staple food for such a big part of the population I cannot ignore its farming practices either.

Adding ducks and fish to the equation, even if they do add more to yield than they take in feed, is going to substantially increase risk of contamination and having all of that extra feces in the flooded fields is probably going to worsen the methane emissions as it ferments.

Upland rice is the better alternative, which eliminates extra methane emissions, and at least can potentially increase yield and germination rate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 95af28c414

What exactly is SRI? Erika Styger, director of programs at the SRI International Network and Resources Center at Cornell University, lays out four practices that broadly define the system. They are transplanting seedlings at a young age (to promote disease and pest resistance); reducing plant density (to decrease competition); adding organic matter such as compost to the soil (to increase fertility); and eliminating flooded fields (to allow the roots to breathe better).

“A lack of oxygen — rice can tolerate it, but rice is not thriving in it,” Styger says. “Usually when you flood the fields, the roots are basically rotting away, because roots need to breathe as well.”

By adopting those methods, or some of them, farmers can produce higher yields (between 20 and 100 percent higher than conventional harvests) with up to 50 percent less water and 90 percent less seed, Styger and her colleagues say. What’s more, SRI can eliminate fertilizers, reduce the methane gases that scientists say contribute to global warming, and dramatically lower the levels of inorganic arsenic, the most toxic form. The latter issue has been a particular concern for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; the agency’s scientists have determined that arsenic in rice (and rice products) poses no short-term risk but are now focused on any potential long-term effects.

Potentially beats ducks and fish, and it needs less input not more (nothing to feed).
I don't think duck and fish integration is the right direction for rice farming, but precisely the wrong one since it increases dependence on flooded fields.

That's interesting if there's a superior alternative to raising animals to boost production. Good point about risks of contamination, I have not thought about that but it suggests there are inherent problems with using animals besides welfare, at least when fertilization from their poop is involved.

Reducing plant density, as suggested in this post, means less rice plants on the same surface. I suppose the increased productivity from the decreased competition between plants makes up for it. Would also that apply to other crops as well? On the other hand in could also mean more rooms for weeds, needing more weed elimination as a result which is not exactly desirable, but if it can be done while reducing the negative impacts of doing it to a further extent then it might be worth it.

Suggesting rice production on non-flooded fields begs the question however, why isn't that more common compared to flooded rice? I guess it's because of rice's high water needs, and as a result it's often more practical for farmers to let it permanently flooded than to water it which means more labor. But I also imagine watering rice plants as they need it saves water compared to permanent flooding right?

They flood rice fields to weed them. Rice tolerates flooding, but doesn't benefit from it.
As you said, irrigating based on need is much better than flooding. But not just for saving water, rice will grow better that way too as long as you get rid of the weeds.