Thread: How important is method of slaughter? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027347
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
It seems that if we buy meat we can't know how it was slaughtered.
Does it matter to you whether:
a) the animal was killed by one method rather than another?
b) whether prayers were said as it was killed?
I hate the idea of cutthroat slaughter, but don't think much of other ways either. I'd like to think that the animal didn't suffer.
As for the prayers, I quite like the idea of thanking God for the animal, and like the idea of having respect for the meat we eat. It doesn't seem right to use it as a throwaway commodity.
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
Theos think tank has an interesting article on this
here
I agree with the point that we should be concerned with the whole production cycle, including the welfare of the animal prior to slaughter.
A few weeks ago I noticed in a local 'big four' supermarket that they had started selling Halal chicken...legs, thighs, breasts etc. I also noted that the Halal chicken was cheaper per kg than 'ordinary' chicken across the products. I have asked the supermarket why this should be so, and I have not yet had a reply.
My concern is that although it is clear that the chicken is Halal, presumably relating to the slaughter process, there is no indication of welfare during the chicken's life. Is the low price reflective of poor husbandry (battery farming) and low quality (old, sick or damaged birds?)
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
Very good article. Thank you Felafool.
I had a long and rather laborious argument with a friend of a friend on Facebook regarding this. All she kept coming back to was that it was "disgusting" and "inhumane", but as a meat eater herself couldn't or wouldn't acknowledge any aspect of the animal's welfare apart from the last few moments of its life.
It was all about 'choice', but she couldn't elaborate why the choice between a stunned animal who then had its throat cut and between an animal who was killed in other ways (e.g. a bolt gun) was a significant choice to make.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
AFAICT though, the vast majority of Halal meat in this country is stunned prior to slaughter.
[This isn't true of Kosher meat btw - where pre-stunning has been explicitly ruled out]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Halal meat tastes better to me.
I also believe that throat-cutting without stunning is kinder because the animal is unconscious before pain reaches its brain.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
AFAICT though, the vast majority of Halal meat in this country is stunned prior to slaughter.
[This isn't true of Kosher meat btw - where pre-stunning has been explicitly ruled out]
That is my understanding too. In fact, from a consumer information point of view ISTM "stunned" vs "non-stunned" would be a more useful distinction than halal vs haram, at least for non-Muslims.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Theos think tank has an interesting article on this
here
I agree with the point that we should be concerned with the whole production cycle, including the welfare of the animal prior to slaughter.
This has been where our family has come down on the issue. My belief is that, if you're going to eat meat, then some animal somewhere is going to have to have one bad day. But there is no reason why it needs to be any more than one bad day. So the life of the animal is important to us (as well as sustainability, but that's another issue).
Unfortunately, here in L.A. my experience has been the opposite of yours-- finding grass fed beef, free range chicken, etc. is difficult and expensive. For pork it's pretty much impossible so we've had to give up bacon (bacon!) all together.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
As long as the meat tastes good and isn't too gristly or fatty, I don't really care how it lived or died.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Unfortunately, here in L.A. my experience has been the opposite of yours-- finding grass fed beef, free range chicken, etc. is difficult and expensive. For pork it's pretty much impossible so we've had to give up bacon (bacon!) all together.
Where I live grass fed beef is twice the price of "regular." (I buy eggs directly from a farmer at about twice grocery store eggs. OTOH the grocery newly sells organic potatoes in 5 pound bags that are the same price per pound as non-organic potatoes of the same kind.)
There's also a "natural" beef (at a premium price) that promises no hormones and a vegetarian diet - vegetarian undoubtedly means GMO corn, cows were not made to live on corn instead of grass so that sounds to me like unhappy confined cow life. Grass fed is just a tad more expensive than "natural."
When I was a kid, food (all of it organic) was a much higher percentage of a household's budget than it is today. I suspect eating organic and grass fed and free range etc would cost the same percentage of the budget my parents spent on food, back before modern destructive farming methods and inhumane animal raising.
It's not that real food is more expensive but that factory foods are artificially less expensive.
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As long as the meat tastes good and isn't too gristly or fatty, I don't really care how it lived or died.
And most people don't Marvin. Thing is, how it tastes is a result of how it lived. A well tended animal that is slaughtered quickly and with as little pain as possible will taste better than a badly cared for and badly slaughtered animal.
I have reared animals for slaughter, I used to follow them through the line to check out the carcases (might have been making sure I got paid for what I sent in but that's another story)it important to know how an animal kills out compared to how it looks running round the field.
I have seen both stunned and halal slaughter. It's much of a muchness between them other than the ick factor. The animal is dead just as fast either way. If the abattoir is set up properly the animal isn't any more stressed. If the abattoir is set up badly the animal is stressed by the blood.
AFAIK here in Ireland halal slaughtered meat should not be sold to non Muslim buyers, I'v no idea how that operates in practise now. At the time I was involved all halal slaughtered meat was for export.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Unfortunately, here in L.A. my experience has been the opposite of yours-- finding grass fed beef, free range chicken, etc. is difficult and expensive. For pork it's pretty much impossible so we've had to give up bacon (bacon!) all together.
Where I live grass fed beef is twice the price of "regular." (I buy eggs directly from a farmer at about twice grocery store eggs. OTOH the grocery newly sells organic potatoes in 5 pound bags that are the same price per pound as non-organic potatoes of the same kind.)
There's also a "natural" beef (at a premium price) that promises no hormones and a vegetarian diet - vegetarian undoubtedly means GMO corn, cows were not made to live on corn instead of grass so that sounds to me like unhappy confined cow life. Grass fed is just a tad more expensive than "natural."
When I was a kid, food (all of it organic) was a much higher percentage of a household's budget than it is today. I suspect eating organic and grass fed and free range etc would cost the same percentage of the budget my parents spent on food, back before modern destructive farming methods and inhumane animal raising.
It's not that real food is more expensive but that factory foods are artificially less expensive.
Yes, true. And part of that shift in household budgets is the shift in our taxes going to support the overproduction of corn (virtually free to those big factory food producers) rather than investing in things like education and affordable housing. So yes, while we're paying far less for food, we're paying far more for things like housing and higher education. So the dilemma remains... wanting to do what's right but finding it hard to do so.
For our family, we've found free-range chicken to be a better bargain than grass fed beef, so that's become the staple of our diet. Eggs from free-range chickens are available at Trader Joe's at a pretty reasonable price. My husband never eats beef or pork, I rarely do. We're trying to increase our consumption of sustainable fish.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I'd be interested to know Temple Grandin's take on this, since she did a lot of work on reducing the fear felt by cattle on their way into slaughter.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Halal meat tastes better to me.
I also believe that throat-cutting without stunning is kinder because the animal is unconscious before pain reaches its brain.
I think you are probably right there, but I'd like to know for sure, if that's possible.
I care a great deal for animals and their welfare. I will eat anything (within reason!) that has had a happy life and humane death.
I have dispatched fish and chickens myself but would never want any animal to suffer for my food, I'd turn veggie first. I buy free range eggs and meat.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'd be interested to know Temple Grandin's take on this, since she did a lot of work on reducing the fear felt by cattle on their way into slaughter.
Her ethic seems to be, if we are going to use animals as a food resource, we can at least demonstrate our gratitude to them by giving them a good life and a humane death.
I have often wondered myself if the origin of table-grace comes less from invoking deity and more from gratitude toward that animal you raised and cared for that was now on your plate.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I found this.
Grandin research including ritual slaughter
It looks as though it can be done without pain or anxiety on the part of the animal, but it is not always so done. It's US research, not UK, anyway, but refers to New Zealand. I would want to know exactly how an animal was killed, I think. Perhaps our supermarkets could find that out.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Halal meat tastes better to me.
I also believe that throat-cutting without stunning is kinder because the animal is unconscious before pain reaches its brain.
I think you are probably right there, but I'd like to know for sure, if that's possible.
Well, going back to the original article that was linked, the fuss was specifically about Halal meat - with the underlying assumption that it was barbaric primarily because it *didn't* involve stunning.
Which in the UK at least turns out not to be the case - and conventional slaughter consists of much the same as Halal slaughter the way it is carried out here (apart from the ritual blessings performed at the same time).
So basically it's a non story that's being promoted due to prejudice against a particular segment of the population.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Halal meat tastes better to me.
I also believe that throat-cutting without stunning is kinder because the animal is unconscious before pain reaches its brain.
I've worked in an abattoir and can assure you that no death is pain free. The animals can smell the blood of the recently killed animals as they come into the slaughter hall - the method of killing is therefore immaterial there's pain and distress whatever.
It's quite clear that the animals experience fear and pain.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Reading a note on humane slaughter from the Temple Grandin site, all factors contributing to animal stress need to be evaluated and tested. It is possible to design by the general guidelines but fail the intent.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Halal meat tastes better to me.
I also believe that throat-cutting without stunning is kinder because the animal is unconscious before pain reaches its brain.
I've worked in an abattoir and can assure you that no death is pain free. The animals can smell the blood of the recently killed animals as they come into the slaughter hall - the method of killing is therefore immaterial there's pain and distress whatever.
It's quite clear that the animals experience fear and pain.
That's why I've focused more on the way the animal was raised then the exact moment of dispatch. My assumption is that death is never going to be pretty. But again I see no reason why the animals we eat need to suffer a lifetime of misery, even if their final day isn't so hot.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
As far as I understand it, all meat sold in supermarkets in the UK is by law from stunned animals, the Halal meat being classed as such due to it being blessed. Meat sold in Halal butchers may or may not come from animals which have been stunned.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
According to Grandin, if the animals are not distressed, if they are calm, as they bleed, the blood does not distress following animals, which may even lick it! She postulates cortisol in the blood may have this effect.
I think a lot of the problems may lie in the numbers involved, ritual or no ritual. I might be going to go veggie. Or possibly investigate how the animals at the farm at the foot of the hill are slaughtered.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So basically it's a non story that's being promoted due to prejudice against a particular segment of the population.
This is my main concern about this "story". It's grist to the mill for those who want to complain about the "islamisation" of our country.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
A butcher once told me that if an animal is stressed before it is killed, it has a higher build-up of lactic acid in its muscle, which does effect the flavour of the meat. His professional view was that this had to be avoided to provide the best quality produce.
I asked him if this is what gives Halal meat it's distinctive taste. He immediately fell quiet.
Disclaimer: I'm tolerate of moderate Islam.
Disclaimer 2: Australian beef is slaughtered inside a clean enclosure with a pneumatic spike through the brain.
[ 10. May 2014, 05:19: Message edited by: Highfive ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Or possibly investigate how the animals at the farm at the foot of the hill are slaughtered.
All animals in the UK have to be slaughtered in an approved abattoir unless the animals is injured or diseased. (It can then be slaughtered on the farm but not used for food).
Gone are the days when small holders could have a travelling slaughterman kill an animal in a stress free environment on the farm. All animals are stressed by the journey and by the smell of death: all meat is affected.
My pigs travelled 4 miles to slaughter in a very small rural unit and the lower level of stress was clear in the subsequent quality of the meat.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Living where I do, with the ubiquity of hunting and fishing, and extant predators (bears, wolves, coyotes, cougars), there is little question that human killing of animals, and predeath care is much nicer than predation. Typically, for example, wolve will corner a moose or wapiti (elk) and slowly strangle it with 1 or 2 holding the neck. The rest disembowel the living animal, eating the intestines and organs etc. Kill sites are pretty nasty to come upon.
It wld seem to me that any manner of swift killing by people is 'nicer' than anything animals do. As for taste depending on method of killing, is there any data from blind taste testing? Or is the taste difference one of perception?
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
Cliffdweller wrote
quote:
Unfortunately, here in L.A. my experience has been the opposite of yours-- finding grass fed beef, free range chicken, etc. is difficult and expensive. For pork it's pretty much impossible so we've had to give up bacon (bacon!) all together.
This is true where I am as well. My point was that Halal chicken was cheaper than the non-organic, non-free-range labelled product supplied for the supermarket's own brand. (i.e. the 'basic' non Halal chicken) This makes me concerned about the welfare of these chickens throughout their life.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I can't tell the difference between halal meat and none halal meat by taste. We have a number of halal outlets near me, so I have had the opportunity to compare.
I think conventional slaughter and halal slaughter are probably little different for the animal if they are done well.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Cliffdweller wrote
quote:
Unfortunately, here in L.A. my experience has been the opposite of yours-- finding grass fed beef, free range chicken, etc. is difficult and expensive. For pork it's pretty much impossible so we've had to give up bacon (bacon!) all together.
This is true where I am as well. My point was that Halal chicken was cheaper than the non-organic, non-free-range labelled product supplied for the supermarket's own brand. (i.e. the 'basic' non Halal chicken) This makes me concerned about the welfare of these chickens throughout their life.
I thought that part of the impact on price was because halal meat and kosher meat passed into the main food chain, it might be more expensive to be absolutely sure something is *not* ritually slaughtered ? I recall hearing that if they couldn't fully blood drain bits of beef carcarse, they just sold it as non-kosher - but I could be wrong about that.
Found a source.
[ 10. May 2014, 12:56: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on
:
As for Halal slaughtered meat, isn't it possible that prejudice and other factors mean the demand for such meat is quite simply lower than the demand for "regular" meat, meaning the prices need to be lower to sell it all? It could also be that households preferring such meat could constitute a subsection of the market with less money per household to spend, or just less interest in paying as much for meat. This is of course just looking at the possibilities offered by economic theories.
I don't know about the demographics of other countries, but I could imagine that should it be the case in Sweden that Halal slaughtered meat is cheaper, it would be because Muslim households tend to be of lower income.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
ExclamationMark wrote: quote:
My pigs travelled 4 miles to slaughter in a very small rural unit and the lower level of stress was clear in the subsequent quality of the meat.
I'm not surprised. Intensively reared pigs are stressed most of their lives and can be pretty aggressive. Field-reared pigs are friendly by comparison. The meat quality difference is quite dramatic and is not trivial.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The farm has its own butchers. I've been looking at their website. Lots of video about machinery and sausages, not so much about the animals, guaranteed hormone and additive free. I've seen them in the fields, though.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Bit of a tangent: I believe I would be a better person if I were vegetarian. But the flesh is weak. as it were.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Living where I do, with the ubiquity of hunting and fishing, and extant predators (bears, wolves, coyotes, cougars), there is little question that human killing of animals, and predeath care is much nicer than predation. Typically, for example, wolve will corner a moose or wapiti (elk) and slowly strangle it with 1 or 2 holding the neck. The rest disembowel the living animal, eating the intestines and organs etc. Kill sites are pretty nasty to come upon.
It wld seem to me that any manner of swift killing by people is 'nicer' than anything animals do. As for taste depending on method of killing, is there any data from blind taste testing? Or is the taste difference one of perception?
Grandin points out the vicious nature of wild kills as well. Yeah, a cow on a well tended farm is going to live longer and happier than a cow on a veldt-- even if they do manage to avoid predators.
And I think the key word is "swift killing", but here in the US we have institutionalized system that amounts to "keeping them barely alive and fully miserable until you kill them," which negates whatever swiftness the actual dispatch might have.
[ 12. May 2014, 17:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It wld seem to me that any manner of swift killing by people is 'nicer' than anything animals do.
Exactly. Few wild critters die gently from old age. Most die horribly from disease or predation. Humans are omnivores, the evidence is in our teeth. We need to eat meat, less of it than we do in the West these days, but a sufficient amount is a necessity in our biology. Sorry veggies, but it's so.
That said, as uniquely moral beings, we mostly try to slaughter our prey as painlessly as possible. Which is more than could be said for the cats in my neighbourhood.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It wld seem to me that any manner of swift killing by people is 'nicer' than anything animals do.
Exactly. Few wild critters die gently from old age. Most die horribly from disease or predation. Humans are omnivores, the evidence is in our teeth. We need to eat meat, less of it than we do in the West these days, but a sufficient amount is a necessity in our biology. Sorry veggies, but it's so.
That said, as uniquely moral beings, we mostly try to slaughter our prey as painlessly as possible. Which is more than could be said for the cats in my neighbourhood.
But, conversely, animals in the wild seem to live fairly happy lives (at least if they're fortunate enough to live in an area free from encroaching human developments): free to roam, reproduce, eat at will (at least as resources allow). Whereas animals raised for human consumption all too often live lives of horrible suffering and confinement. Which, again, is why I choose to focus more on the quality of the animal's life (free range chickens, grass fed beef) rather than the method of slaughter.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
animals in the wild seem to live fairly happy lives
I think there is a fair bit of idealisation and anthropomorphism going on here. Though I would agree that factory farming induces a level of stress, and potentially harm, not found in wild creatures.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
animals in the wild seem to live fairly happy lives
I think there is a fair bit of idealisation and anthropomorphism going on here. Though I would agree that factory farming induces a level of stress, and potentially harm, not found in wild creatures.
Well, at the very least we can say that animals in the wild live the lives they were meant/created for. Being confined all your days in a small crate is not.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But, conversely, animals in the wild seem to live fairly happy lives
Watch any predator chasing down and killing its prey and try to tell me that the prey is happy. Watch a wasp laying its eggs inside a still-living caterpillar so that when they hatch the grubs can eat their way out and try to tell me that the caterpillar is happy. Watch a fly caught in a spider's web and try to tell me that it's happy.
Life for animals in the wild - especially prey animals like cows - is a constant struggle for survival where each day might be the last.
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Exactly. Few wild critters die gently from old age. Most die horribly from disease or predation. Humans are omnivores, the evidence is in our teeth. We need to eat meat, less of it than we do in the West these days, but a sufficient amount is a necessity in our biology. Sorry veggies, but it's so.
That said, as uniquely moral beings, we mostly try to slaughter our prey as painlessly as possible. Which is more than could be said for the cats in my neighbourhood.
Are you telling veggies they're dead?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It wld seem to me that any manner of swift killing by people is 'nicer' than anything animals do.
Exactly. Few wild critters die gently from old age. Most die horribly from disease or predation. Humans are omnivores, the evidence is in our teeth. We need to eat meat, less of it than we do in the West these days, but a sufficient amount is a necessity in our biology. Sorry veggies, but it's so.
Wonder why my sister's still alive after about 30 years of being a vegan...
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It wld seem to me that any manner of swift killing by people is 'nicer' than anything animals do.
Exactly. Few wild critters die gently from old age. Most die horribly from disease or predation. Humans are omnivores, the evidence is in our teeth. We need to eat meat, less of it than we do in the West these days, but a sufficient amount is a necessity in our biology. Sorry veggies, but it's so.
Wonder why my sister's still alive after about 30 years of being a vegan...
Fair point, 'necessity' does overstate the case. But moderate meat-eaters do seem to be healthier than vegetarians. Something was published recently to that effect, wish I could remember details.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I think that veggies are less healthy because there are apparently a significant number of ramen and twinkies type vegetarians. I'm not veggie, but my understanding is that if one really does have a balanced diet etc. one is just as healthy without meat.
Posted by Winstonian (# 14801) on
:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: quote:
As long as the meat tastes good and isn't too gristly or fatty, I don't really care how it lived or died.
I find this troubling. How do you theologically justify disregarding the suffering of sentient creatures?
Originally posted by Argona: quote:
Few wild critters die gently from old age. Most die horribly from disease or predation.
This may (or may not - I don't know) be true, but most wild animals are at least free to roam and engage in natural behaviors, something the animals most of us eat are deprived of. Indeed, many are virtually immobilized for their entire lives. Factory farming is not a pretty thing. Also, the sheer number of animals killed for food should give us pause: more than 9 billion each year in the US alone. Moreover, the fact that nature can sometimes be cruel does not seem to me to be a justification for humans to join in.
Originally posted by Argona: quote:
But moderate meat-eaters do seem to be healthier than vegetarians
Not true. A properly planned vegan diet is extremely healthy, with more of the things we need and less of the things we don't. Professional (American) football players, ironman triathletes, and others with extreme demands on their bodies have said they function better on a vegan diet. Several studies have shown vegetarians and vegans tend to be healthier than most meat eaters.
I think whether or not we eat meat, and if so, how much and where that meat comes from, is a serious theological decision. One that impacts not only our own health and the well-being of other creatures loved by God, but has significant impacts on the planet. billion
Posted by Winstonian (# 14801) on
:
Oops! Didn't mean to include that extra "billion" at the end of my post. One day I'll figure out how to work these computer-thingies. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
Originally posted by Argona: quote:
Few wild critters die gently from old age. Most die horribly from disease or predation.
This may (or may not - I don't know) be true, but most wild animals are at least free to roam and engage in natural behaviors, something the animals most of us eat are deprived of. Indeed, many are virtually immobilized for their entire lives. Factory farming is not a pretty thing. Also, the sheer number of animals killed for food should give us pause: more than 9 billion each year in the US alone. Moreover, the fact that nature can sometimes be cruel does not seem to me to be a justification for humans to join in.
...I think whether or not we eat meat, and if so, how much and where that meat comes from, is a serious theological decision. One that impacts not only our own health and the well-being of other creatures loved by God, but has significant impacts on the planet. billion
Well said-- spot on.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Some very good points made.
I agree with the anthropomorphism. Deer for example, are highly stressed animals in their natural environment. They must look for food, here, more often than not, either under snow or poor nutritional quality twigs from trees, watch out for predators, and when the weather gets nicer, deal with swarms of mosquitos, ticks and also parasites. They always have bugs, which is why hunting is better in the fall after some good heavy frosts. The ground is frozen so the hunters are dry, and the external bugs are dead. If I was a deer, I would rather be shot by a hunter than eaten by wolves.
Posted by Winstonian (# 14801) on
:
I'm not sure where the anthropomorphism comes in in what I said above, but I appreciate that you agree with at least some of what I said.
I don't think the whole comparison to wild animals is valid.
First, as I noted above, the fact that nature can be hard is no justification for human cruelty.
Second, it would work better if we were talking about whether or not it is appropriate to hunt deer or other wild animals for food. The question whether it is less painful and frightening to die by a gunshot rather than to be killed by another animal would then be a valid comparison. Here, however, we're talking about animals bred in captivity to be eaten. There is no question of them being either killed quickly by humans or slowly by wild animals. The only question is how humans will treat them. The answer is almost always with extreme cruelty, since almost all animals we eat are now bred on factory farms, where not only are their living conditions cramped and filthy, and they are mutilated (debeaked, dehorned, tails cut off) without anesthesia, they are fed unnatural food, and they are bred and given hormones to grow unnaturally. Broilers, for example, grow so big so fast that their bones often break or fracture, causing them great pain. Commercial turkeys can no longer mate naturally because their breasts are so big. And that doesn't even consider the brutality with which their handlers often treat them (as repeatedly revealed by undercover investigations) or the misery of long, overcrowded transport, often without food or water, to slaughter. Finally, the slaughter process is so fast, that it is regularly done wrong, with the result that great suffering ensues. In the US, chickens speed by at more than 2 chickens per second (with proposals pending to increase that speed) and are often not hung properly in restraints before their necks are cut, with the result that they are plunged alive into scalding water, sometimes with broken legs because they are slammed into the restraints so fast. I'm not sure attack by a wild animal looks bad by comparison.
Wild animals kill because they need to survive. Humans kill (like this) because we want a "dollar value meal."
Also, while life in the wild has its challenges, as you point out, it is also full of rewards. Ethologists like Jane Goodall, Frans de Waal, Marc Bekoff, and Jonathan Balcombe have made great strides in understanding the intellectual and emotional lives of wild and domestic animals. They form meaningful relationships, they mourn the loss of a companion, they play with one another, and more. Jonathan Balcombe in particular has done extensive work on animal pleasure. As Balcombe said in one of his writings, "Animals aren't just alive, they have lives."
Sorry to go on like this, but our need as a species, and especially as Christians, to be honest with ourselves about what we are doing when we eat meat is a subject I feel rather passionate about.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Your post is a much more thorough version at what I touched on here:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And I think the key word is "swift killing", but here in the US we have institutionalized system that amounts to "keeping them barely alive and fully miserable until you kill them," which negates whatever swiftness the actual dispatch might have.
I need to add, I only say "here in the US" because I have only read about conditions in the US, not to suggest it is only a US problem. I just figure it is more polite to let y'all inform me about the status of your own country.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
quote:
First, as I noted above, the fact that nature can be hard is no justification for human cruelty.
This.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Some very good points made.
I agree with the anthropomorphism. Deer for example, are highly stressed animals in their natural environment. They must look for food, here, more often than not, either under snow or poor nutritional quality twigs from trees, watch out for predators, and when the weather gets nicer, deal with swarms of mosquitos, ticks and also parasites. They always have bugs, which is why hunting is better in the fall after some good heavy frosts. The ground is frozen so the hunters are dry, and the external bugs are dead. If I was a deer, I would rather be shot by a hunter than eaten by wolves.
But that's a false equivalence. No one here is speaking against hunting-- it seems not that different from the animal's pov than most other predators. We're comparing factory farming with life in the wild-- quite a different comparison.
I don't know that my assumption that the deer is relatively content even as searching for food, etc. is any less anthropomorphic than your assumption that that process is "stressful". Both of us are transferring our own experience/ feelings to that of a far different species. But we can see that most animals seem to show some signs of stress when their natural behaviors are inhibited. Foraging for food and running from predators are natural for deer, just as grazing in open fields are natural for cattle. Being confined 24/7 in a small box is not. My assumption remains that such confinement is more stressful than life in the wild, with all it's challenges.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian
Wild animals kill because they need to survive.
AIUI members of the cat family kill for the sport of it. They certainly torment their prey before killing.
Moo
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I think this is a bit of anthropomorphism again. Sport is a human concept, and can have some very ugly manifestations, some of which are resembled by cat behaviour. Torment implies a deliberate conscious choice to inflict pain - it is a synonym for torture. It implies some degree of rationality.
I believe that cats' behaviour with captured prey is a form of practice for future hunts. TV programmes on wild cat behaviour show how frequently hunts can end in failure to eat, so practice is clearly a sensible behaviour to carry through from the young animal to the adult.
Because it looks like the sort of cruel play some people carry out on others, or indeed on animals - boys tying fireworks to cats' tails, for example - does not mean it shares any of the internal characteristics of that human behaviour.
They are animals, like Winnie the Pooh, of very little brain, and should not be judged as if they were human.
Going back to the deer, a study of elk in Yellowstone showed a change in behaviour following the re-establishment of wolves. They chose different areas to graze, where there was less good forage, and seemed to be more edgy, even when the wolves were not near. So they did seem to respond to stress.
[ 15. May 2014, 14:33: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
Here is the article I was thinking of, suggesting that vegetarians may be less healthy and have a poorer quality of life than meat-eaters. It fits with recent arguments that a low fat, high carb diet is in fact less healthy than the converse.
When I mentioned that wild animals most often die painfully, that wasn't to excuse human cruelty. If we must eat meat, of course it's incumbent on us to dispatch livestock reared for food with the least pain and stress that's possible. It's awful where that doesn't happen, though here's a piece about a woman who revolutionised much of slaughterhouse practice in the US.
Must we eat meat? Maybe the jury's coming out that we at least should. It also seems reasonable to presume that, in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, whatever we evolved to eat will be what our wellbeing requires. A cat can be healthy on a diet mostly of meat. A cow, likewise on grass. We are omnivores.
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
Here's a Huffpost piece on the fat v sugar issue. Incidentally I don't disagree with her point that we should eat less meat (and for environmental as well as health reasons).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Must we eat meat? Maybe the jury's coming out that we at least should. It also seems reasonable to presume that, in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, whatever we evolved to eat will be what our wellbeing requires. A cat can be healthy on a diet mostly of meat. A cow, likewise on grass. We are omnivores.
However, it would appear that we eat far more meat than our ancestors (most of whom would have had meat as a rare luxury, unless they were in an elite wealthy class), so you can't really say that 2 or more servings of meat is what we "evolved" to consume. Further, we're also leading both longer yet far more sedentary lives than our ancestors, with much less manual labor/walking/ etc., which may also change our nutritional needs.
[ 15. May 2014, 22:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
However, it would appear that we eat far more meat than our ancestors (most of whom would have had meat as a rare luxury, unless they were in an elite wealthy class), so you can't really say that 2 or more servings of meat is what we "evolved" to consume.
And I don't. The hunter-gatherers we evolved into were probably a lot more gatherers than hunters. Way too much livestock is reared and slaughtered, mainly to satisfy the bloated demand for meat in rich countries. Which means too many crops are grown for animal feed rather than human consumption. Not to mention the greenhouse emissions, which are very significant (herbivores do fart so). Yes, much less meat would be good but some may be necessary.
Posted by Winstonian (# 14801) on
:
I'm not convinced by the article regarding vegetarians being less healthy, which the article itself notes is controversial. It is hard to know how reliable such studies are when you only have someone else's summary. There are many studies indicating it is healthier, most notably the China Study This page includes links to various studies linking eating meat with cancer, for example.
It is very clear most humans do not need to eat meat (I say most to make allowances for allergies and other special situations, as well as for those who live in places where adequate vegetarian or vegan food is not available.) The number of happy, healthy vegans and vegetarians roaming the streets (not to mention the professional athletes) are a testament to that.
I also note that argona said "I don't disagree with her point that we should eat less meat (and for environmental as well as health reasons)." I have to ask: what about for the sake of the animals?
This, to me, is where the rubber meets the road. If we are concerned about our health, we are concerned about ourselves. If we are concerned about the planet, we may be concerned only about humans. As Christians, we are called to be concerned about all of creation, and to give special attention to the animals, who, like us (and unlike trees, and streams, and air) know happiness and sorrow. They know what it is to be loved and to be lonely. (Before you accuse me of anthropomorphism here, please read the work of the scientists I noted in an earlier comment: Jonathan Balcombe, Marc Bekoff, Jane Goodall, and Franz de Waal, among others. Or just check out this website.) They most certainly know pain. Our modern meat production system is a thorough-going exercise in cruelty. It wasn't always this way, but this is where we've got to, and it seems to me sacrilege for Christians to be silent and/or complicit in cruelty.
In the words of Humphrey Primatt, an Anglican priest who wrote A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals in 1776:
quote:
"We may pretend to what religion we please, but cruelty is atheism. We may make our boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity.
We may trust to our orthodoxy; but cruelty is the worst of heresies."
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
It has been my understanding that, originally, meat was derived from animals which grazed on the land which could not be used for growing crops, thus increasing the sources of food, and making sensible use of resources. Also animals used primarily for other purposes, such as draught animals or textile sources. I also gather that grass fed animals do not produce as much greenhouse gas as those fed on crops. I eat meat which is grass fed and outdoor reared, and not much of it. It would be a good idea if all meat production went back to those principles, but that is unlikely to happen.
The problem round here is that we don't use the grazing land for food, and even some arable land has been turned over to grazing horses. Thus damaging my argument.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
Here is the article I was thinking of, suggesting that vegetarians may be less healthy and have a poorer quality of life than meat-eaters. It fits with recent arguments that a low fat, high carb diet is in fact less healthy than the converse.
When I mentioned that wild animals most often die painfully, that wasn't to excuse human cruelty. If we must eat meat, of course it's incumbent on us to dispatch livestock reared for food with the least pain and stress that's possible. It's awful where that doesn't happen, though here's a piece about a woman who revolutionised much of slaughterhouse practice in the US.
Must we eat meat? Maybe the jury's coming out that we at least should. It also seems reasonable to presume that, in the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, whatever we evolved to eat will be what our wellbeing requires. A cat can be healthy on a diet mostly of meat. A cow, likewise on grass. We are omnivores.
That study, which contradicts a lot of other work on the subject, is also the subject of this article on the NHS website.
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/04April/Pages/Vegetarians-have-poorer-quality-of-life-study-claims.aspx
I'd tend to give more weight to the NHS analysis than a newspaper report. Newspaper science reporting is appalling.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I think this is a bit of anthropomorphism again. Sport is a human concept, and can have some very ugly manifestations, some of which are resembled by cat behaviour. Torment implies a deliberate conscious choice to inflict pain - it is a synonym for torture. It implies some degree of rationality.
I doubt it makes much of a difference from the victim's point of view.
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE]I'd tend to give more weight to the NHS analysis than a newspaper report. Newspaper science reporting is appalling.
True. But remember also the ubiquity of confirmation bias, even among the most intentionally objective of people. On this issue I'm aware of it in myself.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by argona:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE]I'd tend to give more weight to the NHS analysis than a newspaper report. Newspaper science reporting is appalling.
True. But remember also the ubiquity of confirmation bias, even among the most intentionally objective of people. On this issue I'm aware of it in myself.
Aye. Which is why basing a position on a single study is a very bad idea.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Most evidence suggests we are omnivores. And also that eating meat helped give rise to our formidable brains.
Several problems here. This does not translate to meat eating being necessary for any individual. Nor does it translate to it being necessary for a long and healthy life.
Vegetarian means one doesn't eat meat, it does not mean one eats healthily. Meat is an efficient way to consume protein and some nutrients, this does not mean those cannot be substituted.
Posted by Winstonian (# 14801) on
:
Here is a five minute interview from this morning w Gene Bauer, President of Farm Sanctuary, ironman triathlete, and vegan since 1985, on some of the issues we've been talking about here. (I hope the link works!)
Posted by aunt jane (# 10139) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Winstonian:
I'm not sure where the anthropomorphism comes in in what I said above, but I appreciate that you agree with at least some of what I said.
I don't think the whole comparison to wild animals is valid.
First, as I noted above, the fact that nature can be hard is no justification for human cruelty.
Second, it would work better if we were talking about whether or not it is appropriate to hunt deer or other wild animals for food. The question whether it is less painful and frightening to die by a gunshot rather than to be killed by another animal would then be a valid comparison. Here, however, we're talking about animals bred in captivity to be eaten. There is no question of them being either killed quickly by humans or slowly by wild animals. The only question is how humans will treat them. The answer is almost always with extreme cruelty, since almost all animals we eat are now bred on factory farms, where not only are their living conditions cramped and filthy, and they are mutilated (debeaked, dehorned, tails cut off) without anesthesia, they are fed unnatural food, and they are bred and given hormones to grow unnaturally. Broilers, for example, grow so big so fast that their bones often break or fracture, causing them great pain. Commercial turkeys can no longer mate naturally because their breasts are so big. And that doesn't even consider the brutality with which their handlers often treat them (as repeatedly revealed by undercover investigations) or the misery of long, overcrowded transport, often without food or water, to slaughter. Finally, the slaughter process is so fast, that it is regularly done wrong, with the result that great suffering ensues. In the US, chickens speed by at more than 2 chickens per second (with proposals pending to increase that speed) and are often not hung properly in restraints before their necks are cut, with the result that they are plunged alive into scalding water, sometimes with broken legs because they are slammed into the restraints so fast. I'm not sure attack by a wild animal looks bad by comparison.
Wild animals kill because they need to survive. Humans kill (like this) because we want a "dollar value meal."
Also, while life in the wild has its challenges, as you point out, it is also full of rewards. Ethologists like Jane Goodall, Frans de Waal, Marc Bekoff, and Jonathan Balcombe have made great strides in understanding the intellectual and emotional lives of wild and domestic animals. They form meaningful relationships, they mourn the loss of a companion, they play with one another, and more. Jonathan Balcombe in particular has done extensive work on animal pleasure. As Balcombe said in one of his writings, "Animals aren't just alive, they have lives."
Sorry to go on like this, but our need as a species, and especially as Christians, to be honest with ourselves about what we are doing when we eat meat is a subject I feel rather passionate about.
One of the most thoughtful posts I've ever read around here. I for one am veggie precisely because I object to modern methods of factory farming
Posted by BashfulAnthony (# 15624) on
:
I have been a keen sportsman all my life and a vegetarian, too. I have had no ill-effects due to my diet. So, as far as I'm concerned killing - and there's no nice way to die, physically or emotionally - is unnecessary. It is a question of " the taste of meat is irresistable to me, though I have to kill you for it. Hard luck, since I intend to have it."
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
Interesting thread. I have been watching the Channel 4 series "The Island with Bear Grylls". The scenario is that thirteen British men have been placed on an uninhabited island in the south Pacific.
The second program showed the men's struggle to find food. They found a fishing net that had been washed ashore but were unable to catch anything.
They managed to survive for about a week on coconuts and winkles taken from rocks.
A pair of the men decided to go further inland and they found a small crocodile called a cayman. They cought the cayman, hogtied it to a branch and carried it back to the camp. Then one of the others - a sheep farmer who went to my childrens school a few years ago - killed it by stabbing it in the head.
They butchered it, roasted the meat over a fire and ate it. This saved them from having to leave the island early before they became seriously malnourished.
Is that right or wrong. The men killed to eat. As part of a realiy TV show. The animal wasn't slaughtered in accordance with current UK law.
Personally I don't have a probelm with it at all. It's showing just how we can adapt if we had to, but it just seems to be pertinent. They needed to eat protein and that meant they caught and killed in any way possible.
Anyone who advocates that we should only eat what we ourselves can kill, should be prepared for much uneccessary suffering of animal if that happens.
Is production slaughter perfect? No. Of course sometimes bad things happen and there is suffering that should be avoided, but far less than if we ended up doing the killing ourselves.
I am a meat eater, but I make a point of admonishing my children if they leave any meat on a plate as part of a meal. They can leave anything but the meat. I try to point out that an animal has died and they are wasting it. They tend to eat the meat then.
I've killed animals, I've fly fished and killed trout and salmon by hitting them over the head with a weighted club. Then I've eaten them.
I have no qualms about killing animals for food, and I believe meat to be an important part of human diet, nevertheless I would like to see less of that meat being wasted. I do think there is an ethical case to be made for that. Let's at least eat what we kill rather than landfill it. That is a true injustice.
[ 22. May 2014, 19:45: Message edited by: deano ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0