The Cluelessness Of Vegans Regarding Slaughtering Animals For Food
Dr. Michael Eades is right on in his 2009 post, "A better way to die?", inspired by a vegan he heard "prattling on about the cruelty of slaughtering animals for food":
These people are clueless. They somehow believe the natural world is a kind, safe place where animals lie about enjoying nature and drift off to sleep when it's time for them to die.
While golfing, he hears odd sounds and comes upon a hawk tearing apart a young crow:
This scenario with the screeching crows diving impotently at the tree while the hawk perched impassively, squeezing the last bits of life from the dying bird, impressed upon me once again the cruelty of life in the wild. Tennyson had it right, "Nature, [is indeed] red in tooth and claw." As I watched it dawned on me that each diving crow was destined for a similar gruesome fate. Even the hawk itself would ultimately come to a bad end when it either got injured or got too old to hunt.There are few easy deaths in the natural world. I hearkened back to my days as a young engineer when I worked for a company that designed and built waste-water, pollution-control systems for various industrial concerns.
...In the course of my time on the job, I spent a fair amount of time in a number of slaughterhouses. I didn't know what to expect the first time I went to one. I had visions of its being some kind of nightmarish charnel house from an Hieronymus Bosch painting with squealing animals trying to escape and blood running knee deep. The reality was anything but.
The slaughter process was orderly and the animals being led in - actually they walked in without being led - calmly trudged to their ends in single file through the narrow chutes. They didn't wail or bellow; they didn't try to escape; no one was standing above them driving them with cattle prods. It was...orderly. That's the best word to describe it.
Once the animals were stunned, they dropped instantly. Workers attached the unconscious beasts to a hoist that lifted them and started them on their way to becoming the meat we buy in the supermarket. I spent countless hours in these facilities, and never saw the cruel treatment of any animals. About the worst that would happen would be that a steer would get turned around in the entry area and cause a little momentary chaos until it got straightened back around.
In the end, he writes this:
Death is almost never pleasant in nature. ... Those of us who eat meat owe it to the animals we consume to do everything in our power to make their lives pleasant and their deaths painless. Thanks to the efforts of Temple Grandin and others - not to mention the financial incentives to provide better quality meat - we can do this. Given the choice, I think domestic animals would quickly throw their lot in with us rather than be left to the tender mercies of nature, which would be the choice made for them if vegan activists were in charge.
What percent of wild animals reach old age and what percent of farm animals reach old age? Death in the wild may not be pleasant, but I guess life in the wild is better than life in a farm(especially a factory farm) where the animal gets no space to move and no space to breathe or play. The reason people are vegans is not because of the cruelty of the slaughter process, but because of the cruelty of the rearing before the slaughter. If the meat at the store was obtained by an individual human hunting down a wild animal with a crude 4 inch knife, I think even the vegans would have no problem with it. And that would restrict meat production to how it was before domestication of animals...just enough for a once in a year feast, not something which you would be able to get every single day off the shelves.
Redrajesh at November 6, 2013 12:56 AM
So those who can't hunt their own have to starve, right?
Fact: commercial ranching feeds the world. Don't cuss 'em with your mouth full. That just looks stupid.
Radwaste at November 6, 2013 6:34 AM
Right on, Rad.
Amy Alkon at November 6, 2013 6:39 AM
"And that would restrict meat production to how it was before domestication of animals...just enough for a once in a year feast, not something which you would be able to get every single day off the shelves."
Yes, life was so much better then. People lived well into their forties, or if they were lucky, their fifties! Weren't so many of those pesky children running underfoot, either! My, such a simple, tranquil, beautiful way to live!
Sorry you hate living a longer, better life. I'm especially sorry for your children, not dying in childbirth or at a young age from malnutrition. Can you say "shortsighted"? I knew you could!
Jim Armstrong at November 6, 2013 6:41 AM
Ok here is my rant.....and I agree with Redajesh.
I loathe the argument that nature kills animals gruesomely (thus we are actually being nicer!) but fails to mention the horror show that is factory farming.
I spent a summer in my grandfathers farm, and saw pigs, goats, chickens being slaughtered. That is not the issue that many animals rights activists have. It's the conditions. It's the use of antibiotics unnecessarily, the food they are fed, the space, even the way they are slaughtered, etc.
Vegetarianism has a long history in Asia and I admire the commitment to not killing.
However I feel that vegans/vegetarians should not be fighting for people to stop eating meat (it is just not going to happen). But instead better more humane ways to consume meat. I want grass fed cows damn it.
Temple Grandin above is a fantastic example of someone who actually did something. You want people to have access to quality meat.
I'm sick that everything in our society is about acquiring cheap shit. It's not admirable.
Fortunately thanks to scientists well eventually be able to grow meat.
Ppen at November 6, 2013 6:41 AM
So, I've been to a small farm. Let's just say I wish my family had the green space those pigs had - or even the chickens!
Shannon M. Howell at November 6, 2013 6:50 AM
I guess I don't see how this argument means anything. Nature is cruel. Human beings have tamed much of nature in order to make our lives and the lives of animals better. The fact that nature is cruel could potentially license any cruelty that humans want to justify.
That said, I think that people generally speaking need to be more aware of where the actual food they eat comes from. We have a vision that the cows and pigs that we eat lived idyllic lives outside with plenty of space to roam and then they were killed for food. The factory farming practices in the US often given animals very little space. They are crammed together, filled with growth hormones and antibiotics and then killed for food. That is the reality.
Should that matter? That depends on the person. If you care about where you food has come from, then it matters. If you just care about the end product, then you may still want to know how many extra hormones and how many antibiotics were injected into the animal you are now eating.
Ultimately, this is a personal choice. We are all remarkably uneducated about where our food comes from.
Art Markman at November 6, 2013 7:05 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/the-cluelessnes.html#comment-4035435">comment from Art MarkmanActually, Fred Hahn just posted something on FB contending that it's a myth that antibiotics a cow takes affect the human consumers of the cow. I haven't had time to watch it, but it's a researcher talking on a YouTube video. Will try to find the link.
Here's what he wrote:
It's Peter Ballerstedt, Ph.D., presenting at the Ancestral Health Symposium 2012 (AHS12) -- 'The Reality of Ruminants and Liebeg's Barrel: Examining the New 'Conventional Wisdom'
Amy Alkon at November 6, 2013 7:28 AM
Actually the issue is the runoff and resistant bacteria.
Ppen at November 6, 2013 7:55 AM
Cattle might get the best deal out of being slaughtered for food. Their life and death is the least bad among food animals plus they produce the most calories per death of any common meat (I mean, unless you eat whale). I recognize that there is wild animal suffering, Brian Tomasik has written some wonderful things on the issue. What I am against is bringing animals into the world to suffer and die, that is, creating more lives that are not worth living. Consider chickens bred for food. They represent a small amount of calories per death, they are genetically bred in a way that is very painful and there are 9 billion killed in the US alone in a system that cannot possibly be well regulated. Estimates vary but some say that as many as 10% of chickens miss the kill machine and are boiled alive. Egg laying hens may have it even worse because males are killed when they are days old (in a virtually unregulated system that doesn't forbid grinding them up alive) and females (in the USA) are shocked into laying cycles (look up "forced molting") and can experience painful conditions such as uterine prolapse.
I would also be against bringing a child into the world who was severely and painfully disabled. When I buy meat I'm funding a system that brings animals into the world who, for the most part, live lives not worth living and who experience more suffering than pleasure. I may not be able to do anything about wild animal suffering now but I can, with my consumer choices, not fund this system. Michael Eades is, as usual, caricaturing vegans. If people don't fund animal agriculture it doesn't mean that the same amount of animals exist in the wild, as Eades implies, it means that fewer animals exist for the sole purpose of being someone's dinner which usually entails considerable suffering.
Diana Fleischman at November 6, 2013 9:05 AM
Yeah, you're HELPING the animals. Keep telling yourself that, Amy.
Look, either you accept what you're doing or not. You want to eat meat, do it. But don't kid yourself that you're making the world a better place for those animals. You're not.
Life is what it is, though, and we all make choices. But be honest.
NicoleK at November 6, 2013 11:09 AM
"Fortunately thanks to scientists well eventually be able to grow meat."
And whent that day comes, Luddites will scream to high heaven that it isn't "natural" and should be banned.
Cousin Dave at November 6, 2013 11:09 AM
Here is my question to vegans and vegetarians.
If we were not meant to eat meat, why the hell do we have fangs? If we were meant to eat nothing but grains and vegetables, we would have teeth more like a deer than a bear. We are omnivores, not herbivores. You are what you are. Why hate yourself for it, why fight it? I'm pretty damn sure the shark feels absolutely no remorse for ripping into the seal.
As for farming, I do agree that we could farm in a far more humane fashion, but that won't happen until there is more of a profit to be made from farming humanely.
Think I'll go grab a burger.
wtf at November 6, 2013 12:24 PM
"live lives not worth living and who experience more suffering than pleasure."
Diana - Garage Logic would say that you do not know that. I venture to say that you are not even sure if your life is worth living. There have been times in my life that I was sure it wasn't worth living.
Dave B at November 6, 2013 1:56 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/the-cluelessnes.html#comment-4036240">comment from NicoleKYeah, you're HELPING the animals. Keep telling yourself that, Amy.
I'm not helping the animals. I'm eating them. Eating meat is optimal for human health.
Killing animals as humanely as possible is essential.
But this is about the pretense that Bambi has it so much better in the wild.
If somebody's going to kill me, I want it to be fast and as painless as possible. I don't want them to chew off my arm while I'm alive. You?
Amy Alkon at November 6, 2013 2:26 PM
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
Silence Of the Yams
Eat like the French- enjoy your food, have small portions and don't snack.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 6, 2013 3:36 PM
Loved the link Gog.
I loved the idea of eating lots of plants and treating meat as a seasoning (Thomas Jefferson quote).
I just don't believe a meat centered diet is optimal. Yes I have read the low carb books but I've also read about the Okinawans, the traditional vegetarian diet of Indians, and visited places that are not low carb and the people are still crazy skinny.
Ppen at November 6, 2013 4:00 PM
I just don't believe a meat centered diet is optimal. Yes I have read the low carb books but I've also read about the Okinawans, the traditional vegetarian diet of Indians, and visited places that are not low carb and the people are still crazy skinny.
Posted by: Ppen at November 6, 2013 4:00 PM
It is quite possible to be thin on a pretty high carb diet. There are two ways to do it.
The first is to be young and or very active, like the run five miles a day kind of active.
The second is calorie restriction. This is how truly poor people do it. They can buy or produce just enough calories to keep them alive and thin, but usually not enough to make them healthy and long lived.
Want to duplicate this eating plan? Just have someone lock you in a large cage in the Philippines and pay someone to shove in water, and 1000 calories worth of rice, vegetables, and tropical fruit, once a day.
I wouldn't recommend trying this in rural Minnesota. The lack of vitamin D will probably kill you faster than the high carb diet will.
Isab at November 6, 2013 4:31 PM
"But don't kid yourself that you're making the world a better place for those animals."
Sure I am. I'm purchasing pastured chicken eggs at the grocery store. 108 square feet of grass per chicken according to the company's website. Every Sunday at the farmer's market I'm paying a premium for pastured pork from heritage pigs or lambs that have frolicked in the grass up until the day they went to the abattoir.
Thanks to bunches of foodies/ locavores/ people who care about the animals they eat it can make a lot of financial sense to offer products that come from happy animals. A happy life and a fairly painless death (it improves the quality of the meat if the animal isn't stressed before death). Vote with the pocketbook and all that.
Elle at November 6, 2013 4:57 PM
"108 square feet of grass per chicken according to the company's website."
You don't think that the company skewed the numbers just a little? There is no profit to be made giving a single animal that kind of space.
Coming from a farming community, I can tell you any farmer who says that it either lying or out their damn mind. It simply isn't financially feasible for farmers to offer up that kind of space to a single animal.
If farmers did (and they don't) offer that kind of space to an animal, it would be a high meat yield animal, as in cows or pigs. Chickens are a low profit livestock in the first place. Think about it logically-how many eggs do you think a single chicken produces in a day? A week? Also, if you're raising chickens for meat, you want them to move as little as possible so they don't burn valuable calories. That's why the commercial farms feed them growth hormones. It's also why KFC cages them from birth.
"A happy life and a fairly painless death (it improves the quality of the meat if the animal isn't stressed before death). Vote with the pocketbook and all that."
Please provide a link that proves this. Seeing as how most meat cattle are slaughtered before the age of two years in order to preserve the quality of the meat, I really would like to see the numbers on this.
wtf at November 6, 2013 5:45 PM
What I love is how everyone is blaming it on the ranchers and farmers (R/F for the post) and saying cruelty abounds.
For a R/F to put their animals into the normal meat market (i.e. grocery store meats) they have to meat certain USDA/FDA standards, including antibiotics, minimum weights, as well as other regulations.
Then throw in that a slaughter house has even additional rules.
My neighbor is/was an R/F mostly in pigs but had some cattle. He is also a butcher with his own shop as well. So if you are a local hunter and got a deer, he couldn't process the wild deer in the same slaughter shed he had at home that he processed the pigs/cattle in. So he would have to transport the pigs/cattle to a corporate slaughter house about a 100 mi round trip, or not process the hunter's deer.
Also the typical R/F is interested in the best size/weight. They are going to do their best to not stress out the animals raising their adrenaline and slowing their growth.
So calling the typical R/F cruel to animals means they aren't looking out for their best interest. That is like saying a doctor deliberately mistreats patients because he want to get less money from them.
Jim P. at November 6, 2013 8:25 PM
So those who can't hunt their own have to starve, right?
Fact: commercial ranching feeds the world. Don't cuss 'em with your mouth full. That just looks stupid.
Crap. What fed the world was agriculture. Nobody can preserve meat for a long time without refrigeration. What can be preserved without any refrigeration for years is grain. Even during famines a 100 years ago before electricity became common, the well off only stocked grain during lean years to ensure food security for their families and did not hoard livestock which would have depleted their grain stores. And people are not going to die without meat. Throughout history, people ate less of meat because it was very difficult to get and meat being common has been a very recent phenomenon. And given the number of vegetarians who have lived long, definitely you cannot say that vegetarians starve or do not live long etc.
"
Here is my question to vegans and vegetarians.
If we were not meant to eat meat, why the hell do we have fangs?"
Why do we have just 4 fangs and 28 teeth that are not fangs? Going by your logic, grizzly bears should eat just meat all the time, but even their diet is predominantly vegetarian and they eat meat very rarely only when desperate for food..
Redrajesh at November 6, 2013 9:44 PM
"Crap. What fed the world was agriculture. Nobody can preserve meat for a long time without refrigeration"
Four words on meat. Dry it, freeze it, smoke it, salt it. And you don't need modern refrigeration to do it. In Alaska they use the weather.
Grains are also extremely vulnerable to pests. Hard to keep the rodents and the bugs out, in most climates.
If you think a diet of rice and pickles with bits of fish for protein is optimum, take a look at a group of elderly Japanese.
They average about four foot nine, and most of them over seventy have deformed backs and poor bones.
Starting in the 1700's the British started noticing that their American cousins were bigger stronger, and in better health than their relatives back in England. Better diet, and more sunshine was a big part of the reason.
Isab at November 6, 2013 10:14 PM
"In Alaska they use the weather"
What about africa? How long does your smoked and salted meat last there? And rodents do not attack meat in africa? I am sure rice and wheat are not attacked by rodents in alaska as well.
If you take an old japanese man who was mostly a manual labourer in his lifetime, you are obviously goind to have a person with weak bones and deformed backs even if that guy ate a whole chicken everyday because of the nature of work he did and his unhealty habits. If you take a rich man, you will find his bones intact whether he was vegetarian or not. Examples of vegetarians in the old days who lived pretty long and healthy lives: George Bernard Shaw. No evidence to show that his health was very poor compared to his peers. Neither is Pamela Andersons health poor compared to her peers.
Redrajesh at November 6, 2013 11:38 PM
"If you take an old japanese man who was mostly a manual labourer in his lifetime, you are obviously goind to have a person with weak bones and deformed backs even if that guy ate a whole chicken everyday because of the nature of work he did and his unhealty habits. If you take a rich man, you will find his bones intact whether he was vegetarian or not. Examples of vegetarians in the old days who lived pretty long and healthy lives: George Bernard Shaw. No evidence to show that his health was very poor compared to his peers. Neither is Pamela Andersons health poor compared to her peers."
I am in Japan right now. Actually it is mostly the elderly women that look the worst. Calcium and vitimin D deficiency for the most part. Not enough dairy products and sunshine. Their teeth are particularly affected. Horrible dental problems because their jaws didnt develop enough for their teeth to come in correctly. The British have the same problems with their teeth, and it is also poor diet, and lack of vitimin D.
You can stay reasonably healthy if you are rich, on a vegetarian diet, but it is tough to do, because of the lack of complete proteins. It isnt optimum, for adults, and it is particularly hard on children, Their teeth and bones dont develop correctly.
Isab at November 7, 2013 2:41 AM
"Actually it is mostly the elderly women that look the worst. Calcium and vitimin D deficiency for the most part. Not enough dairy products and sunshine."
Keep in mind that those old women were having babies in the middle of WWII deprivation.Sweet potato gruel and whatever greens could be scratched together was about it, in the last few years of the war. In addition, only 5% of Japanese women do any type of estrogen replacement, vs. 85% of American women.
With a diet rich in seaweed, tofu, miso etc is dairy such a necessity?
crella at November 7, 2013 5:30 AM
"If you take an old japanese man who was mostly a manual labourer in his lifetime, you are obviously goind to have a person with weak bones "
Why would a lifetime of work cause weak bones? Japanese men who were laborers all their lives are a pretty hardy lot...
crella at November 7, 2013 5:32 AM
"Vegetarianism has a long history in Asia and I admire the commitment to not killing."
Wow, this is WAY out there! You think the average Asian has this "commitment"?
Never read a history book, have you?
There are a bunch of straw men in here, but the above illustrates the viewpoint of the dreamer (possibly one who thinks that the Ancients Knew So Much™) better than other posts here.
Redrejesh is right there with you. He doesn't realize that Argentine beef is actually a competitor for American beef, because you know? - we actually have refrigeration on ships nowadays.
Radwaste at November 7, 2013 5:33 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/the-cluelessnes.html#comment-4037840">comment from crellaLifting heavy things is good for your bones.
I did a science-based radio show on this.
What seems to be not so good for your bones is eating starchy carbohydrates.
PS Taking calcium tablets seems pretty worthless. Dr. William Davis, author of Wheat Belly, joked on my radio show that it's like trying to build a patio by throwing bags of cement out your back door.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amyalkon/2012/11/26/advice-goddess-radio-amy-alkon
Amy Alkon at November 7, 2013 7:31 AM
Why would a lifetime of work cause weak bones? Japanese men who were laborers all their lives are a pretty hardy lot...
Nope, especially not the ones who were labouring just around WW2. It is not labouring that is bad for the bones, it is the smoking and excess boozing with no concern for proper nutrition which is the problem. Most of the working class guys were heavy smokers easily smoking 20 plus cigarettes a day and a lot of them used to booze every night sometimes skipping food to ensure enough money for booze. This habit over the years took its toll on them resulting in otherwise healthy guys becoming total skinny deformed men in their older age. I see the same happening all around me in India today. I have seen guys who were damn strong in their youth turn into frail bags of bones in their old age and I see this as a regular occurrence in the working class guys here.
Redrajesh at November 7, 2013 7:46 AM
He doesn't realize that Argentine beef is actually a competitor for American beef
How did you come to that conclusion? I spoke about preservation of grain vis-a-vis meat a 100 years back before electricity and refrigeration. Its not like people stopped starving only after ww2 or only after electricity reached every single inhabited place on earth. Even today a lot of places do not have electricity, but people even in those parts are quite healthy nowadays compared to how they were a couple of generations ago.
"You think the average Asian has this "commitment"?" - In India, the priest and merchant castes have been vegetarians for hundreds of years(so that is at least 10 generations). While they may not be the average Indian, they definitely form close to 20-30% of the current Indian population which is almost the entire current population of the USA. And 20-30% of the people being vegetarian right from birth till death is an amazing number by any standards for any part of the world because the percentage of lifelong vegetarians in any part of the world would not exceed 2-5%.
Redrajesh at November 7, 2013 8:07 AM
"Why do we have just 4 fangs and 28 teeth that are not fangs? Going by your logic, grizzly bears should eat just meat all the time, but even their diet is predominantly vegetarian and they eat meat very rarely only when desperate for food.."
Hate to break it to you darlin, but you have it backwards. They eat meat as a food source especially in the winter, when they require massive amounts of calories, or when nursing. Salmon, especially, is one of their favorite foods.
If you do your research, their eating habits follow the season. In the spring, they eat left-over winter kills, whatever animal they can catch, and berries. In the summer and fall, when prey is faster and stronger from eating all spring and therefore too fast to catch, they rely on root vegetables and tubers, berries, and salmon. In the winter, they prey on weak, sick and injured animals, like elk and deer. (Which is cruel right, they should only go after the strong and healthy ones.)
While you are partially correct in that a large part of their diets relies on berries and tubers, the flaw in your argument is that they do not turn to meat when desperate, they turn to meat when they can, they're hunters and actively seek meat.
If you actually look at a grizzly bears teeth, they look remarkably similar to ours. They only difference is the canines are enlarged and extended for GRABBING AND STABBING. That, and they have fewer of them.(Also, ever take a look at the frakin claws on them? That'll take off a few layers of skin!!)
https://www.google.ca/search?q=grizzly+bear+teeth&espv=210&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=0MF7UrHFHM-24APR8YAI&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1163&bih=817
Their diet is actually remarkably similar to ours.
Bears are opportunists of the first order and I don't think they really feel bad for the poor salmon as they sink their claws into it's head.
And my argument wasn't that we weren't meant to eat veggies, just that we were meant to eat meat as well.
wtf at November 7, 2013 8:59 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/the-cluelessnes.html#comment-4037993">comment from wtfMeat is simply the healthiest thing you can eat, with all the nutrients in the right proportions, for the human body.
Pssst, vegetarians, you probably only THINK you're getting enough B-12.
http://chriskresser.com/what-everyone-especially-vegetarians-should-know-about-b12-deficiency
Amy Alkon at November 7, 2013 9:10 AM
"Although the diets of grizzly bears vary extensively based on seasonal and regional changes, plants make up a large portion of them, with some estimates as high as 80–90%.[60] Various berries constitute an important food source when they are available."
Source: Wikipedia. If 80-90% of their diet is plants or even 60%, that is damn high for an animal like the grizzly and can hold for humans as well. Plus I never said we should not eat meat either, I just said nobody is going to die due to lack of meat or due to eating meat just once a year. Even humans can do pretty well on a predominantly plant based diet, especially when a grizzly bear can do well on it. Plus a closer relation can be drawn with mountain gorillas(the Diane Fossey ones). Their diet is also predominantly plant based. So that explains the need for how less we need our fangs.
Redrajesh at November 7, 2013 9:12 AM
"Seeing as how most meat cattle are slaughtered before the age of two years in order to preserve the quality of the meat, "
I said a "happy life," not a long one.
I'm not an animal rights activist. I am a consumer of animals. The "be nice to animals" factor is partly why I'm willing to pay a premium. But more importantly to me, the ones that taste the best are the ones that were treated right during life, eating diets natural to their species, engaging in their natural activities, and were not stressed in their final moments.
"You don't think that the company skewed the numbers just a little? There is no profit to be made giving a single animal that kind of space."
It's possible. I'm just going by what they tell me on the box, not visiting the farm or anything. Maybe they use chicken tractors or something. But at *six dollars a dozen* (that price still makes my jaw drop a little every time I pull them off the shelf) there's a bit more wiggle room for not cutting the costs to the bone. (And some more wiggle room for the chickens too I hope). I can tell you that the yolks have a lovely shade of gold and a great taste that aren't found even in cage-free eggs.
My point being, that because of people like me, there is financial incentive for farmers and ranchers to preserve heritage breed animals and to raise them naturally. My willingness to spend six bucks for chicken eggs, or nine bucks a pound for pork belly, provides a lot more incentive to keep the animals happy than any number of sign-waving vegans.
Elle at November 7, 2013 12:54 PM
"Although the diets of grizzly bears vary extensively based on seasonal and regional changes, plants make up a large portion of them, with some estimates as high as 80–90%.[60] Various berries constitute an important food source when they are available."
As we both agree, it depends on the season. I think however, that the figures are slightly inaccurate, as I find it difficult to believe that an animal that needs that much fat over the winter could accumulate the needed calories on mushrooms. Also, being an apex predator, it's not going to give up a nice juicy elk for a strawberry.
http://diet.yukozimo.com/what-do-grizzly-bears-eat/
"I just said nobody is going to die due to lack of meat or due to eating meat just once a year."
No, but it sure as shit isn't healthy for you. We need meat, certainly more than once a year, especially when pregnant. You aren't going to get the calories, vitamins, iron or proteins in the amount you need to stay healthy if you don't eat meat; not without eating supplements or putting a helluva alot more effort than it's worth, IMO, than if you just ate a steak. It's also more stressful on the environment, as to turn a profit, you need to plant a hell of alot of corn. To do that, you need to take down a helluva lot of trees.
wtf at November 7, 2013 1:27 PM
"Plus a closer relation can be drawn with mountain gorillas(the Diane Fossey ones). Their diet is also predominantly plant based. So that explains the need for how less we need our fangs."
Your sentence was a little blurry, especially since my first language is French, but I think you mean why we don't need our fangs as much. (tell me if I read that wrong) This is explained more through evolution more than relation. We don't need our fangs all that much anymore because we haven't chased down our food to any great extent in a few thousand years.
Just as humans have been getting taller over the past few dozen generations, we have lost the need for fangs due to farming, and cooking our food. As for the gorilla, they still eat termites and ants, which provides the protein they need. It still is a form of meat, just a really icky one. And I don't think they feel bad for eating ants.
As for gorillas being close to humans, depending on which side of the scientific fence you fall on, chimpanzees are actually closer. (Source-reason.org) And while most of their diet truly does consist of vegetation, they actually do sometimes hunt monkeys and other animals. And they have the fangs to do it with. So, they too are meant to eat meat.
http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/what-do-chimps-eat
wtf at November 7, 2013 1:43 PM
"But more importantly to me, the ones that taste the best are the ones that were treated right during life,"
As I said, please provide a link that proves this. If the meat from a "happy" animal really did taste better, farmers around the world would be treating their animals better than their children, as they'd get a higher price for the meat. While most farmers do try to avoid unnecessarily stressing the animals to avoid vet bills, they aren't going to hit their pocket books in an effort to keep their animals "happy". Not when caging them brings them profits.
"and were not stressed in their final moments."
Please provide a link that proves this. I don't think the bear sees a difference between the taste of a long dead winter kill or a freshly killed deer. Otherwise they would avoid burying their kills, and hunt a fresh one. (As much as people like to state otherwise, while not as smart as humans, they certainly aren't stupid.) I also doubt there would be time for an animal to feel stressed when dying. Death usually occurs within minutes.
"eating diets natural to their species,"
According to a few posters in the thread, it isn't natural for humans to eat meat more than a few times a year. Yet most do. Why are you going to treat an animal better than a human? In addition, donuts and chocolate bars aren't natural to our species, but we seem to like to eat them.....
"there's a bit more wiggle room for not cutting the costs to the bone. (And some more wiggle room for the chickens too I hope)"
Nope. They're using the whole animal rights thing to drive up the profit margin. Not the treatment of the chickens. They cut costs in any way they can. As I said, chickens are a low meat yield animal in the first place.(Think about it. When was the last time you went to the grocery and saw a 30 lb chicken?) You want them to move as little as possible to avoid burning valuable calories.
My grandparents-in-law are farmers. If they gave 108 sq ft to each chicken, they'd have no room for the much more valuable cattle, or crops. The chicken flock is kept in an outdoor cage that measures about 350 square feet with the coop, and they have 35 chickens.
The company is using your sympathies to bilk you, sorry to say.
wtf at November 7, 2013 2:07 PM
Death in the wild may not be pleasant, but I guess life in the wild is better than life in a farm(especially a factory farm)
Care to test that hypothesis by living in the wild yourself?
Vegetarianism has a long history in Asia and I admire the commitment to not killing.
And what the fuck do you suppose happened to the happy little animals that USED to live where the farm is located? What do you think they do to the rodents that try and eat the food they are growing?
I guess I don't see how this argument means anything. . . The fact that nature is cruel could potentially license any cruelty that humans want to justify. . . filled with growth hormones and antibiotics and then killed for food. That is the reality.
So, just so I am clear, you are claiming that giving animals medicine to prevent their deaths from painful illnesses is cruel?
Fred Hahn just posted something on FB contending that it's a myth that antibiotics a cow takes affect the human consumers of the cow.
Silly Amy, facts have no sway before Ideology
Egg laying hens may have it even worse. . .females are shocked into laying cycles . . .and can experience painful conditions . . .
Factory produced eggs taste like ass. Most municipalities allow you to have one or two chickens which will produce more eggs than a family of four could want, plus they'll eat all you bad food so feeding them costs only a few extra gallons of water a week. Want to stop animal cruelty show people how to get better tasting food cheaper
108 square feet of grass per chicken . . . Thanks to bunches of foodies/ locavores/ . . . financial sense to offer products that come from happy animals.
While I agree with Elle's attitude, I have to agree with wtf. The farmer is shading the truth. But then so id wtf, though I'd be willing to bet thru ignorance not malice.
There is probably a relatively small coop they are kept in at night to sheild from predators, and the field they are loosed onto during the day is probably shared by more than just the chickens
Four words on meat. Dry it, freeze it, smoke it, salt it.
You can also jar it. I just got 88lbs of turkey for about $25 with sales and coupons. 66lbs of them are already processed and in jars, depending on how you store it it can last six months to two years
Even humans can do pretty well on a predominantly plant based diet,
Only in areas with a high level of technology
lujlp at November 7, 2013 3:42 PM
"Please provide a link that proves this. I don't think the bear sees a difference between the taste of a long dead winter kill or a freshly killed deer."
Well no shit a bear wouldn't care, if it even noticed. I'm talking about people tastebuds. And it's a pretty well documented thing. Every hunter knows that dropping a deer quickly means better tasting venison. But if it's a link you want:
http://www.sapork.biz/stress-can-affect-meat-quality/
"Why are you going to treat an animal better than a human? donuts and chocolate bars aren't natural to our species, but we seem to like to eat them..... "
Well, I don't intend on eating humans, so I don't really care if other humans are eating a diet natural to our species or not.
Elle at November 7, 2013 3:45 PM
"The chicken flock is kept in an outdoor cage that measures about 350 square feet with the coop, and they have 35 chickens."
The idea behind pastured chicken eggs is that they are in a pasture, not a cage.
http://www.vitalfarms.com/pastureraising.html
"As I said, chickens are a low meat yield animal in the first place...You want them to move as little as possible to avoid burning valuable calories."
You are conflating laying chickens and eating chickens. Running around and eating bugs creates better tasting eggs (better tasting chicken too, but significantly tougher). Roasting chickens are slaughtered at 14 weeks (fryers at 7). Even battery cage layers live for about 2 years (backyard chickens live significantly longer). At that point they aren't good for eating outside of a stew.
"The company is using your sympathies to bilk you, sorry to say. "
Nah, the taste alone is worth the jaw dropping price. And I figure at a dollar a day (two eggs), it's still one of the cheapest breakfasts around.
"There is probably a relatively small coop they are kept in at night to sheild from predators, and the field they are loosed onto during the day is probably shared by more than just the chickens"
Yeah, that makes sense. I wouldn't be surprised to find out they were doing animal rotation a'la Polyface Farms.
Elle at November 7, 2013 4:12 PM
"So, just so I am clear, you are claiming that giving animals medicine to prevent their deaths from painful illnesses is cruel?"
HA!
"But then so is wtf, though I'd be willing to bet thru ignorance not malice."
How?
"There is probably a relatively small coop they are kept in at night to shield from predators, and the field they are loosed onto during the day is probably shared by more than just the chickens"
The coop is small, for heat conservation purposes.(Gets pretty damned cold up here at night in the fall)But other than 4 ducks, no, it isn't shared.
wtf at November 7, 2013 4:15 PM
"As I said, please provide a link that proves this. If the meat from a "happy" animal really did taste better, farmers around the world would be treating their animals better than their children"
It's like the difference between a Big Mac and a dry aged, wood grilled ribeye cooked to perfection. They are two different ways of being profitable. Likewise, there's the pigs that are raised en masse for Oscar Meyer weenies and on the other end you have Iberico pigs who are probably treated better than some people's children.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/how-animal-welfare-leads-to-better-meat-a-lesson-from-spain/244127/
(sorry for spamming the comments here, I didn't want my comments to get eaten by the spam monster for too many links)
Elle at November 7, 2013 4:17 PM
"Well no shit a bear wouldn't care, if it even noticed. "
Why? Dogs (cousins of bears) frequently have preferred food and treats. Why should a bear be any different? If you read the link I posted above, a bears *favorite* food is salmon. It seems to me a fish would be harder to catch than an elk, so why go after the harder to catch prey? Nutritional content, and taste.
I followed your link, Elle, and one important factor was bolded. *Perception of quality* Which to me says it's all in your point of view. Also, if you read the paragraph pertaining to the debate, it says:
Pigs which are carrying the *malignant hyperthermia (MH) gene,* also called the porcine stress syndrome (PSS) gene are particularly susceptible to any excessive exertion or handling stress, but even MH negative animals are badly affected by bad handling during selection, loading, transport, off-loading, lairaging and stunning technique.
Which says to me that it depends largely on whether the animal carries this gene. Even if it doesn't, as in I assume cows, this is why animals are killed young, to prevent toughening of the meat.
"The idea behind pastured chicken eggs is that they are in a pasture, not a cage."
For most private farmers, this isn't feasible, due both to economics and predators.
(better tasting chicken too, but significantly tougher)
Don't know about you, but I would think that a tender chicken tastes better than a tough bird.
"Nah, the taste alone is worth the jaw dropping price."
Subjective.
wtf at November 7, 2013 4:30 PM
Also Ellw, many of the steps suggested in your link are simply not feasible to private farmers, who don't have unlimited cash flow to hire farm hands.
As I said, if this were true across the board, farmers would be treating their animals better than their children, as they would get more money for the meat.
wtf at November 7, 2013 4:37 PM
Why are you talking about bears?
"Which says to me that it depends largely on whether the animal carries this gene."
Okaaaaaay then, how about a brief from the UN Food and Agriculture Orginization. (Look for the entry on Pale Soft Exudative on page 3. Continue reading through page 7.)
http://coin.fao.org/coin-static/cms/media/8/13075074179380/2001_04_high.pdf
There is far more that goes into the quality of meat from the animal than just its age.
"Also Ell[e], many of the steps suggested in your link are simply not feasible to private farmers, who don't have unlimited cash flow to hire farm hands."
Those aren't suggested steps. That is actually a working *private* farm (I assume you're talking about the Iberico farm).
And correct, not every farmer would find that method of rearing animals profitable, just like McDonald's would not find it profitable to sell dry-aged Kobe beef fillets. And some people will always want Big Macs. The price point of Oscar Meyer bologna is *very* different than jamon Iberico.
Some farmers do find it economically feasible to raise happy meat. Because I sure find a lot of it at the farmer's market and sourced from around the world. Will every farmer find it feasible? No. But some will. And the more money I and others like me spend on these happy meats, the more other farmers and ranchers will be encouraged to raise happy meats.
"Don't know about you, but I would think that a tender chicken tastes better than a tough bird."
A tougher, older bird tastes more "chickeny." I like that taste. And you just can't make a coq au vin with a roaster. It doesn't stand up to the wine.
"Subjective."
No shit. Taste is subjective. See above; I like the extra-chickeny taste from a less tender bird, but you'd rather have the tender, quick-raised birds (that taste watery in my opinion). But the majority of the culinary world agrees with me: Happier meat is tastier meat. (I don't feel like looking up links all night so check out Ramsay, Bourdain, Blumenthal, Ruhlman, and Keller.)
Elle at November 7, 2013 5:58 PM
"How did you come to that conclusion? I spoke about preservation of grain vis-a-vis meat a 100 years back before electricity and refrigeration."
Annnnd here's one of the straw men. The initial topic is about our diet TODAY. TO - DAY.
""You think the average Asian has this "commitment"?" - In India, the priest and merchant castes have been vegetarians for hundreds of years (so that is at least 10 generations)."
And so religion is the reason now, not a dietary issue. There's straw man #2.
If you really, really want to put a dent in the eating of meat, go after the manufactured food industry. Any proctologist will tell you that you can't hurt yourself jamming greens in your mouth, but your guts will pile pounds on you if you eat a lot of meat, especially with carbs, because of the quality of the nutrition. McDonald's fries are the key to weight gain under the golden arches. Now, look at all of the other stuff on fats - where you can actually LOSE weight with bacon. Last time I looked, bacon was a meat substance.
By the way - McDonald's was going to import beef from Argentina. Easy, because ships can be refrigerated.
Radwaste at November 7, 2013 6:11 PM
With a diet rich in seaweed, tofu, miso etc is dairy such a necessity?
Posted by: crella at November 7, 2013 5:30 AM
Because the Vitamin D and fat in dairy helps you retain calcium in a form that keeps your bones and teeth strong. I am in northern Japan, and there is very little sunshine up here. Most of the Japanese have darker skin and they need a lot more Vitamin D than they get in their food, or from the sun, although you see more dairy in the stores now, and the kids are getting bigger, and stronger.
Also, the stomach cancer rates are sky high up here. Again, doctors now believe Vitamin D deficiency is a big factor in that too.
The Japanese try very hard to make the rest of the world view them as a prosperous tech savvy, healthy first world country.
The realityis more grim. They hide a lot of social and medical ills, and infrastructure problems, by simply not giving them any publicity.
The truth is, the Japanese migrated north into Japan from southern Asia several thousand years ago. They brought their tropical diet with them, and it is ill suited for good teeth and healthy bones, in a climate that resembles Vancouver.
Isab at November 7, 2013 7:20 PM
wtf my chicken comment was about the farm Elle buys from, not your grandparents place
Dogs (cousins of bears) frequently have preferred food and treats. Why should a bear be any different?
Because dog have people feeding them by hand to the have the luxury of refusing food?
lujlp at November 8, 2013 8:55 AM
"Why are you talking about bears?"
Woops-sorry, got your post confused with Radra's.
I think the main point of our contention is that you seem to think I'm against raising "happy" meat.
I'm not. If you have the funds, do it. I just don't think it's economically viable for most small farms. Most farmers like my grandparents-in-law, however, don't have the funds to do this. Not when they don't have the space or funds available to commercial farms. It seems to me though, that a commercial farm would operate on the same premise as small farms, just on a larger scale. Why would they waste the profits on larger cages, or pastures, when the administrators can pocket bonuses? I think most would fall under this category.
I have a hard time believing that a "traumatic" death (is there any death that isn't stressful?) would have that great an impact on the taste of meat. Death just doesn't take that long, at least not when you're slaughtering beef. Maybe if you're a rat being squeezed to death by a snake, but for the most part death is so quick and painless in the slaughterhouses, (at least the ethical, responsible ones) I can't believe that a "traumatic" death would harm meat quality in any way.
As for the impact of raising "happy" beef on taste, again, I have a hard time believing it would impact taste, as most animals are killed before two years old. For the most part, I think it's mostly due to age and activity. Also, if you do any lake fishing, you know most catches are put on a stringer or in a cold box till they reach land. That has to be pretty damn stressful for the fish, yet I love me some fresh caught wall-eye. Your link certainly did give me some interesting concepts to debate at Sunday dinner mind you.
Also, I think you equate lack of space into lack of happiness. If you observe cattle in a field, they tend to cluster together no matter how much space they're given. I've seen 15 head of cattle on an two acre enclosure habitually cluster at one tiny end of the property. Same with the chickens, even in the daytime they seem to like being in the coop. I don't think they're unhappy, just habitual. I don't think giving them more space would make them any happier.
"Because dog have people feeding them by hand to the have the luxury of refusing food?"
I didn't say they wouldn't eat other foods, just that they have preferred foods. I doubt that bears lack taste-buds or preferences just because they're bears. If that were true, alot of animals, such as the cane toad, and many plants, wouldn't have developed an unpleasant taste as self defense.
wtf at November 8, 2013 11:07 AM
Anecdotally I had a friend that hunted on a regular basis. One season he went out and got a deer week one with a shot to the heart. Took it into town and had it butchered and froze it. The taste was delicious. The next weekend he went for the second of the season. The deer moved as he shot it. It was a liver shot. He tracked it down about 30 minutes later over a mile away. He took it in for processing. The meat had a very gamey taste and was nowhere near the first one. He eventually cooked the rest up as dog food. Both were in the same size and age range according to him and the butcher.
That being said, my neighbor is a pig farmer and butcher. He bought his farm off a couple getting that was retiring. The farm house was old and drafty. The barn was in pretty good shape. His wife walked out to the barn to call him for dinner one night in February. She was very upset to find the pig barn was about 78 degrees while the house was lucky to make it to 65.
Most farmers aren't to the point of treating them like children, they realize their livelihood depends on healthy animals.
Jim P. at November 8, 2013 7:11 PM
"Most farmers aren't to the point of treating them like children, they realize their livelihood depends on healthy animals."
Agreed. As I said above, most farmers will avoid unnecessarily stressing their animals to avoid vet bills, if nothing else.
That said, I think 108 sq ft per chicken is a little extreme, and financially unfeasible.
wtf at November 9, 2013 8:48 AM
"Anecdotally I had a friend that hunted on a regular basis. One season he went out and got a deer week one with a shot to the heart. Took it into town and had it butchered and froze it. The taste was delicious. The next weekend he went for the second of the season. The deer moved as he shot it. It was a liver shot. He tracked it down about 30 minutes later over a mile away. He took it in for processing. The meat had a very gamey taste and was nowhere near the first one. He eventually cooked the rest up as dog food. Both were in the same size and age range according to him and the butcher."
This is correct. Pronghorn are particularly bad tasting if they on the run when shot. Also eating sagebrush makes them taste bad too.
This is why many hunters go out early in the morning. Deer will lie down to sleep, and it is best to shoot them right after they get up, and before they start moving around.
Another thing that will improve the meat, is cooling it down fast, so cold weather hunting yields the best quality meat, and you will be assured of quality game if you can gut the animal quickly, and chill it in snow or a nearby cold creek.
Then you need to dry age the meat for a while before you cut it and freeze it.
My father was a semi professional hunter, and I ate quite a bit of wild game growing up.
Isab at November 9, 2013 4:23 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/the-cluelessnes.html#comment-4043471">comment from IsabPronghorn are particularly bad tasting if they on the run when shot.
Interesting. I would guess because of adrenaline/cortisol-type reaction.
Amy Alkon at November 9, 2013 5:28 PM
Leave a comment