What will happen when demand for meat declines significantly

[Jebus]

Most vegans seem to think (hope) that breeding of farm animals will decline as more and more people become vegan/vegetarian. I am worried that the meat industry will adapt in an unfortunate manner. Instead of reducing the breeding of cows, wouldn't they just start killing them a lot earlier. I understand veal is considered especially delicious and that it is quite a bit more expensive. If they started killing more calves instead of steers the price for veal would drop and meat eaters would start eating baby corpses rather than adult corpses. Obviously they would have to keep enough female cows alive into adulthood so that they could still breed a sufficient amount of calves but this would not be an economic burden as long as there is demand for dairy. I really hope someone will find fallacies in this reasoning.

[brimstoneSalad]

If demand for veal rose, they would produce more veal. But veal is not the most economical source of beef, so no, they wouldn't switch to veal. They'd just breed fewer cows, and continue making meat as economically as possible (which requires rapid growth, and killing at the end of that growth curve).

However, that said, all cows that are killed are basically babies anyway. They only keep them alive for a couple years until the rapid growth slows.

[Jebus]

veal is not the most economical source of beef.

At the moment, no, but wouldn't that change if demand were significantly reduced?

I'm not at all familiar with the economics of the meat industry so I'm just relying on good ol common sense. Although the meat industry will certainly lose some of their profits once demand for meat declines, I am worried they might kill the same amount of animals although the time of captivity before death would be significantly reduced. Breeding does not cost the industry much. The major costs, I assume, are associated with the time from birth to maturity which according to Brimstonesalad is only a few years. I just did a quick Google search and it seems calves are killed and sold for veal at 18-20 weeks. If demand for meat is significantly decreased, assuming that breeding costs nearly nothing, why not just kill the calves almost immediately after birth?

[miniboes]

veal is not the most economical source of beef.

At the moment, no, but wouldn't that change if demand were significantly reduced?

Which demand? the demand for veal or regular beef? If the demand for veal were to decline it would be less economical to produce too, as generally the rule is that the more you produce the easier it gets. If the demand for regular beef declines and the demand for veal does not, then veal might become more economical. However, there is no reason to think the demand for veal will not decline too. The people that refuse to eat regular beef probably won't feel much better about veal, plus its more expensive.

I am worried they might kill the same amount of animals although the time of captivity before death would be significantly reduced

.

Why would they breed the same amount of animals? They have to feed them water, corn, antibiotics, they have to put effort into impregnating them, etc. Cow breeding is not free.

Breeding does not cost the industry much.The major costs, I assume, are associated with the time from birth to maturity which according to Brimstonesalad is only a few years.

A few years of feed, antibiotics and water is a lot of resources. There is a reason they need a shit ton of subsidies from the government.

I just did a quick Google search and it seems calves are killed and sold for veal at 18-20 weeks. If demand for meat is significantly decreased, assuming that breeding costs nearly nothing, why not just kill the calves almost immediately after birth?

Well, breeding does not cost nearly nothing, but in order to have baby cows you need grown cows. A baby cow cannot make another baby cow.

[Jebus]

miniboes. I will be happy to reply to your comments but before I do are you sure you didn't rush through the opening post and the subsequent posts and missed some of the main points?

[miniboes]

miniboes. I will be happy to reply to your comments but before I do are you sure you didn't rush through the opening post and the subsequent posts and missed some of the main points?

I did read all posts, I might have misunderstood.

[Jebus]

veal is not the most economical source of beef.

At the moment, no, but wouldn't that change if demand were significantly reduced?

Which demand? the demand for veal or regular beef? If the demand for veal were to decline it would be less economical to produce too, as generally the rule is that the more you produce the easier it gets. If the demand for regular beef declines and the demand for veal does not, then veal might become more economical. However, there is no reason to think the demand for veal will not decline too. The people that refuse to eat regular beef probably won't feel much better about veal, plus its more expensive.

I meant the demand for regular beef. I'm worried about the following sequence: demand for meat drops- the meat industry can no longer afford to feed cows to maturity and decide to kill calves- price of veal drops significantly as supply is increased- meat eaters change to veal as it is both cheaper and better tasting- amount of cow killings increase (or remain stagnant) as it takes more calves than full grown cows to feed a human being

Why would they breed the same amount of animals? They have to feed them water, corn, antibiotics, they have to put effort into impregnating them, etc. Cow breeding is not free.

Again, I know almost nothing about the meat industry but I can't see why the process of impregnating a cow would be particularly expensive. Once the calf is born, I assume his/her food costs would increase with age which is why the meat industry would be motivated to kill them at a younger age

A few years of feed, antibiotics and water is a lot of resources.

Exactly my point, which is why I worry they will kill them at a younger age

Well, breeding does not cost nearly nothing, but in order to have baby cows you need grown cows. A baby cow cannot make another baby cow.

Absolutely, and I think this is mentioned in the opening post. As long as there is a thriving dairy industry, I believe it will be economically viable to raise mommy cows who can also produce calves which will be killed a few weeks after birth

[brimstoneSalad]

The key word you're looking for is "feed conversion ratio"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio

Economical production of meat requires a low ratio.

FCR is lower for younger animals that are growing quickly; e.g. the first couple years.

When calves come out of the womb, they're mostly bone and organs. It's not economical to kill them before the FRC levels off, because that's where you recoup the most from the original investment (the mother spends a lot of energy making the calf in the womb).

Now, if demand for dairy was just enormous and demand for beef very low, then maybe they'd make more veal just because there was a surplus of calves. But it's not an efficient beef production method. I feel like milk would more likely just get more expensive until demand leveled off. Or the industry would find a better way to stimulate lactation.

[Jebus]

The more I think of this issue, the more I realize how reliant the meat industry is on the dairy industry. This is something the "ethical vegetarian" needs to ponder. Good thing there is no pig milk industry.