The final journey

Xcellor

Although Dalton understood clearly why he was doing it the tears of love for his lamb Beans rolled down his face as he led the animal into a truck for its final journey.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/tears-as-young-boy-says-goodbye-to-slaughter-bound-lamb-he-reared-863308.html

Sad for the kid.

Lady Haywire

Xcellor wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/tears-as-young-boy-says-goodbye-to-slaughter-bound-lamb-he-reared-863308.html

Sad for the kid.

The kid knew what he was getting into when he decided to start the project. It's not like he was given a sheep and not told what was going to happen until the lamb was ripped bleating from his arms. Fair play to those parents, that is a child who knows where his food comes from and has respect for it.

Xcellor

Lady Haywire wrote: »

The kid knew what he was getting into when he decided to start the project. It's not like he was given a sheep and not told what was going to happen until the lamb was ripped bleating from his arms. Fair play to those parents, that is a child who knows where his food comes from and has respect for it.

No doubt he was told the following.

"You need meat to grow and become a big strong boy."

So in his mind he probably believes that there is no other way. Given the right information and an actual choice I very much doubt he would have led Beans to be slaughtered.

Lady Haywire

Xcellor wrote: »

No doubt he was told the following.

"You need meat to grow and become a big strong boy."

So in his mind he probably believes that there is no other way. Given the right information and an actual choice I very much doubt he would have led Beans to be slaughtered.

You are assuming. It's difficult in this day & age to tell kids things and have them believe it. I grew up learning exactly where my burger or chicken came from and I wouldn't change it. Just because you believe in something yourself, doesn't mean others have the same way of thinking.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

No doubt he was told the following.

"You need meat to grow and become a big strong boy."

So in his mind he probably believes that there is no other way. Given the right information and an actual choice I very much doubt he would have led Beans to be slaughtered.

No he was told the truth. It appears that the kid knows what happens with regard to farm animals. It doesn't mean the lad has no feelings.

It's unfortunate that many do not recognise that - all forms of food production involve death. Every acre of wheat, vegetables or legumes require that animals and organisms die.

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

No he was told the truth. It appears that the kid knows what happens with regard to farm animals. It doesn't mean the lad has no feelings.

It's unfortunate that many do not recognise that - all forms of food production involve death. Every acre of wheat, vegetables or legumes require that animals and organisms die.

But not all forms of food production sets out with the objective of killing a conscious life form at the end.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

But not all forms of food production sets out with the objective of killing a conscious life form at the end.

The point is that all food production involves the death of a wide range of animals and organisms. It is a fact that this is inevitable - so yes the objective is there whether some people choose to acknowledge it or otherwise.

Eathrin

gozunda wrote: »

The point is that all food production involves the death of a wide range of animals and organisms. It is a fact that this is inevitable - so yes the objective is there whether some people choose to acknowledge it or otherwise.

If you could choose between
(a) More death
(b) Less death

And arrive at the same outcome, which would you choose?

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

If you could choose between
(a) More death
(b) Less death
And arrive at the same outcome, which would you choose?

And how exactly do you quantify which individual choices cause more or less death?

How do you weigh the value of an endangered species wiped out by cultivation against the slaughter of a farmed animal?

Do you hold that wild animals and organisms are of a lesser value than those under the care of humans?

What of the consequential destruction of habitats caused duting tillage and harvesting?

Food production is not a linear calculation and never will be.

The important thing to acknowledge is that all food production arable, horticultural and annimal results in death. Not to point fingers and ignore what is convenient to ignore.

There are myriad of ways of killing animals without even touching them.

Eathrin

gozunda wrote: »

And how exactly do you quantify which individual choices cause more or less death?

How do you weigh the value of an endangered species wiped out by cultivation against the slaughter of a farmed animal?

Do you hold that wild animals and organisms are of a lesser value than those under the care of humans?

What of the consequential destruction of habitats caused duting tillage and harvesting?

Food production is not a linear calculation and never will be.

The important thing to acknowledge is that all food production arable, horticultural and annimal results in death. Not to point fingers and ignore what is convenient to ignore.

There are myriad of ways of killing animals without even touching them.

Not ignoring it, and you failed to answer a simple question, which says it all.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746569_We_Already_Grow_Enough_Food_for_10_Billion_People_and_Still_Can't_End_Hunger

Veganism is about reducing harm as much as practical. We on this planet already grow enough food to feed the planet. The meat industry is simply unnecessary.

Bradlin

Xcellor wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/tears-as-young-boy-says-goodbye-to-slaughter-bound-lamb-he-reared-863308.html

Sad for the kid.

Was it really necessary to put a kid through that, knowing exactly what the outcome was going to be? I don't subscribe to the BS that it will toughen him up.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

Not ignoring it, and you failed to answer a simple question, which says it all https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746569_We_Already_Grow_Enough_Food_for_10_Billion_People_and_Still_Can't_End_Hunger Veganism is about reducing harm as much as practical. We on this planet already grow enough food to feed the planet. The meat industry is simply unnecessary.

Yes I answered that directly and asked how is it possible to calculate something which is not a simple linear equation!

I see that you fail to grasp the point that one way or another death is a fact of life. The much repeated 'aim' of veganism matters little when faced with the reality of food production and the its consequences ignored by that 'aim'.

Of note - First yes, there is enough food to feed everyone on the planet. Then why do some people suffer hunger? The answer is poverty caused by greed and corruption often in the very countries where hunger is evident.

To repeat humans eat crops and meat and farm animals are fed the by products and waste from crops and also eat that which cannot be eaten by humans are all part of that equation. Animal agriculture is an integral part of all food production - from using animal based organic matter to replenish the fertility of Soil in which crops are grown - to utilising the vast amounts of waste products left over after human food is processed from the edible portions of those crops which are fed to farm animals.

All forms if agriculture - arable, horticutual and animal work together to feed humanity and to use what is produced in the most efficient manner. Ignoring this because you dont like meat is illogical.

The logic that killing and / or depriving animals of their own foods and ecosystems and habitats is ok but killing them to eat is cruel makes no sense whatsover.

Perhaps you would be good enough to put some effort at answering the questions I asked in my previous reply rather than using rather meaningless comments such as that 'which says it all" (sic)

Eathrin

gozunda wrote: »

Yes I answered that directly and asked how is it possible to calculate something which is not a simple linear equation!

I see that you fail to grasp the point that one way or another death is a fact of life. The much repeated 'aim' of veganism matters little when faced with the reality of food production and the its consequences ignored by that 'aim'.

Of note - First yes, there is enough food to feed everyone on the planet. Then why do some people suffer hunger? The answer is poverty caused by greed and corruption often in the very countries where hunger is evident.

To repeat humans eat crops and meat and farm animals are fed the by products and waste products of crops and also eat that which cannot be eaten by humans are all part of that equation. Animal agriculture is an integral part of all food production - from using animal based organic matter to replenish the fertility of Soil in which crops are grown - to utilising the vast amounts of waste products left over after human food is processed from the edible portions of those crops which are fed to farm animals.

All forms if agriculture - arable, horticutual and animal work together to feed humanity and to use what is produced in the most efficient manner. Ignoring this because you dont like meat is illogical.

The logic that killing and / or depriving animals of their own foods and ecosystems and habitats is ok but killing them to eat is cruel makes no sense whatsover.

Perhaps you would be good enough to put some effort at answering the questions I asked in my previous reply rather than using rather meaningless comments such as that 'which says it all" (sic)

More death or less death. You literally did not give me a straight answer. This is what you do, you dance around the facts with useless ramblings and inconsistent comparisons.

I'm vegan, so I'm for less death and less suffering, always. It's not one thing or another. I'm for getting rid of animal agriculture altogether. I'm for researching methods of arables farming which reduce harm to wild creatures.

Yes the poverty and hunger is caused by greed. Honestly I feel you need to think about it some more because you're already half way to the answer. Meat is expensive and takes away from our ability to grow more food for human consumption. More food equals lower prices for all.

Animal agriculture is horribly ineffient in land use, water consumption and food consumption. It's horribly damaging to the environment, including the soil, water and air. There are green fertilizers you can read up on but you're so terribly stuck in your ways you probably don't realise there's any other way to do things than how it's done right now.

You don't seem to realise that most of my life I loved eating many meat products. Going vegan was the most logical thing I've done in my life and I'm deeply sorry that I didn't do it sooner. When you know the truth about the harm you are doing to animals and your fellow humans, there's no way you could live any other way. It's difficult to shake beliefs you've had your whole life, and you'll argue with strangers on the internet to justify your life, but you don't need to. It's a great sign of maturity to even consider that you may be wrong, and research the facts to come to a proper conclusion. I do it all the time.

endacl

Eathrin wrote: »

If you could choose between
(a) More death
(b) Less death

And arrive at the same outcome, which would you choose?

The one with lamb chops.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

More death or less death. You literally did not give me a straight answer

. This is what you do, you dance around the facts with useless ramblings and inconsistent comparisons.
I'm vegan, so I'm for less death and less suffering, always. It's not one thing or another. I'm for getting rid of animal agriculture altogether. I'm for researching methods of arables farming which reduce harm to wild creatures.Yes the poverty and hunger is caused by greed. Honestly I feel you need to think about it some more because you're already half way to the answer. Meat is expensive and takes away from our ability to grow more food for human consumption. More food equals lower prices for all.Animal agriculture is horribly ineffient in land use, water consumption and food consumption. It's horribly damaging to the environment, including the soil, water and air. There are green fertilizers you can read up on but you're so terribly stuck in your ways you probably don't realise there's any other way to do things than how it's done right now. You don't seem to realise that most of my life I loved eating many meat products. Going vegan was the most logical thing I've done in my life and I'm deeply sorry that I didn't do it sooner. When you know the truth about the harm you are doing to animals and your fellow humans, there's no way you could live any other way. It's difficult to shake beliefs you've had your whole life, and you'll argue with strangers on the internet to justify your life, but you don't need to. It's a great sign of maturity to even consider that you may be wrong, and research the facts to come to a proper conclusion. I do it all the time.

Less ad hominem would be a good start. My answer to you eathrin - because that question does not have a 'straight answer'

The simplification of such arguments in that way - is at best a reduction to absurdity. Berating posters because they will not enter into such a stupid discusion is nothing short of gratutious verbal bashing.

All things die. It's part of life and is one if the most basic laws of entrophy. If you don't acknowledge that - Im sorry but I can't help you.

I note from previous comments not that long ago you stated you were not vegan. I can only presume that such evangelical zeal commentry above is the outcome of the newly converted. Much of what you have posted also appears to be direct copies of much repeated hype from various vegan vloggers and websites and make no sense whatsover and do Not stand up to scrutiny.

I know about agriculture and fertilisers both organic and inorganic. I knew about green manure and the nitrogen cycle and how all types of Agriculture are intrinsically linked. I know about and have years of practical experience of the growing of vegetables and crops and the care and management of livestock. I know and acknowledge that all forms of food production are damaging to the environment. I know about the need for change and innovation. I knew what is reality and what is pie in the sky imaginings. I also know bs when I see it and am not afraid to point that out either. I

Posing a complex area as a black or white argunent is a fallacy of false argument at best and fails to address the issues convened completly. Repeating vacous slogans such as the one about no harm is as about as useful to discussion as a chocolate teapot is to having breakfast!!

McGiver

gozunda wrote: »

The point is that all food production involves the death of a wide range of animals and organisms. It is a fact that this is inevitable - so yes the objective is there whether some people choose to acknowledge it or otherwise.

Yes violence is inevitable, so is death. But it is about the degree of violence used.

You do understand the difference between killing a microbe, single cell organism, a plant, simple multicellular organism with no central nervous system, an insect, a small invertebrate with very simple nervous system or a mammal, a complex organism with a complex central nervous system?

The difference is in degree of suffering caused which is essentially a function of central nervous system complexity.

Lamb cries while being killed, a potato does not and cannot!

Xcellor

Lady Haywire wrote: »

You are assuming. It's difficult in this day & age to tell kids things and have them believe it. I grew up learning exactly where my burger or chicken came from and I wouldn't change it. Just because you believe in something yourself, doesn't mean others have the same way of thinking.

We all knew where meat came from but the level of detachment between the animal and what was on our plates coupled with the "you need meat/dairy and eggs to be healthy." meant as children we just accepted it. We then grew into adults conditioned to believe it was normal and essential.

What goes on to support this industry is cruel and unnecessary and completely unsustainable.

gozunda

McGiver wrote: »

Yes violence is inevitable, so is death. But it is about the degree of violence used. You do understand the difference between killing a microbe, single cell organism, a plant, simple multicellular organism with no central nervous system, an insect, a small invertebrate with very simple nervous system or a mammal, a complex organism with a complex central nervous system?
The difference is in degree of suffering caused which is essentially a function of central nervous system complexity.
Lamb cries while being killed, a potato does not and cannot!

If you somehow believe that only "microorganisms and invertebrates" are killed in arable and other non animal food production you are unfortunately much misinformed ...

Are animals killed in the process of farming vegan foods? Is it possible for a vegan to ensure that no animals were harmed in the production of their food without growing it themselves?


Charlie Knoles, Vegan with B. science in biology and agriculture.

Updated Dec 30, 2015 · Author has 543answers and 4.9m answer views

A lot of animals are killed in all kinds of agriculture. I'll never forget the first time I saw a combine harvester go through an organic soybean field and kill all the animals that had made that field their home. Among the many animals that died that day were baby bunnies that were skinned by the blades and were then eaten alive by hawks.  The hawks followed the harvester through the field looking for an easy meal. I knew that the farmer had contracted his crop to an organic tofu company and that most of the people eating this food would be vegans and vegetarians. The irony of this situation was enough to stop me from going vegan for many years afterwards. I would frequently bring up this anecdote when I would argue with vegan friends. It still annoys me when my fellow vegans act as though their lifestyle is 100% cruelty free and that no animals die in the process of making their food. It speaks to an ignorance of the realities of farming and rural life.

https://www.quora.com/Are-animals-killed-in-the-process-of-farming-vegan-foods-Is-it-possible-for-a-vegan-to-ensure-that-no-animals-were-harmed-in-the-production-of-their-food-without-growing-it-themselves

Is that violent enough for you? The above describes US food production - however the detail of the death, destruction and violence caused by such production which she describes is global ...

I'm fairly sure those bunnies also 'cried' ....

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

If you somehow believe that only "microorganisms and invertebrates" are killed in arable and other non animal food production you are unfortunately much misinformed ...



https://www.quora.com/Are-animals-killed-in-the-process-of-farming-vegan-foods-Is-it-possible-for-a-vegan-to-ensure-that-no-animals-were-harmed-in-the-production-of-their-food-without-growing-it-themselves

The above describes US food production - however the detail of the death and destruction caused by such production which she describes is global ...

I'm fairly sure those bunnies also 'cry' ....

The difference is one farming method sets out to kill and exploit animals. The other doesn't.

In a field of cattle being raised for slaughter a farmer will make sure to herd every last one into the truck.

In a field of soya beans the harvester will finish when the beans are collected. It won't be aimed at remaining wild life.

One is direct and intended. One is indirect and not intended.

wexie

Xcellor wrote: »

The difference is one farming method sets out to kill and exploit animals. The other doesn't.

In a field of cattle being raised for slaughter a farmer will make sure to herd every last one into the truck.

In a field of soya beans the harvester will finish when the beans are collected. It won't be aimed at remaining wild life.

One is direct and intended. One is indirect and not intended.

So your logic is that an animal killed by accident is less dead?

:rolleyes:

Xcellor

wexie wrote: »

So your logic is that an animal killed by accident is less dead?

:rolleyes:

Nope

:rolleyes:

wexie

Xcellor wrote: »

Nope

:rolleyes:

Okay so then tell me how it's better for a bunny to accidentally be shredded by a combine harvester than for a cow to be purposely to be stunned and killed?

Cause that's what you're somehow implying no?

Lady Haywire

Xcellor wrote: »

We all knew where meat came from but the level of detachment between the animal and what was on our plates coupled with the "you need meat/dairy and eggs to be healthy." meant as children we just accepted it. We then grew into adults conditioned to believe it was normal and essential.

What goes on to support this industry is cruel and unnecessary and completely unsustainable.

The modern age means that these days kids know exactly what being a vegetarian/vegan is. So I don't agree that the same 'conditioning' exists with kids today. That boy is raised on a smallholding, which means he has seen births & deaths and hardships with farming. As smallholders I'm sure they produce lots of veg too, don't get me wrong. The article itself states that this as the first time they kept sheep.

His parents made it clear to him the lambs would possibly end up being sold at the Douglas County Fair.

This is what i'm going to reiterate. He was told from the start what could happen & yet he still wanted to do it. So this boy, at 8, made the decision himself & saw it out, he knew the odds and still took them. Do you not believe that if you're eating meat, it's best to give them a good life beforehand & have respect for them? I know your answer is going to be 'don't eat meat at all' but that is not a feasible possibility for the world right now.

Xcellor

wexie wrote: »

Okay so then tell me how it's better for a bunny to accidentally be shredded by a combine harvester than for a cow to be purposely to be stunned and killed?

Cause that's what you're somehow implying no?

Humans don't need to raise animals for the sole purpose of slaughter and exploitation.

Land Animal Agriculture = ~70 billion animals are directly killed each year + animals indirectly killed / displaced for rearing cattle.

Arable Agriculture = Animals indirectly killed / displaced for cultivation.

There is no form of modern agriculture that will not indirectly kill animals but in my opinion doing the least amount of harm; reducing unnecessary suffering is more ethical and sustainable.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

The difference is one farming method sets out to kill and exploit animals. The other doesn't. In a field of cattle being raised for slaughter a farmer will make sure to herd every last one into the truck.
In a field of soya beans the harvester will finish when the beans are collected. It won't be aimed at remaining wild life. One is direct and intended. One is indirect and not intended.

That is irrelevant to the point being made in reply to previous comments - in that all food systems result in 'death' and destruction and what another poster defined as 'violence' . Unfortunately this is ignored by many adherents to the belief that only animal farming is 'bad' ...

davidjtaylor

Xcellor wrote: »

doing the least amount of harm

Selective quoting, I'm aware, but that is the key phrase.

'Do no harm' should be a universal philosophy but unfortunately people like an easy life.

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

That is irrelevant to the point being made in reply to previous comments - in that all food systems result in 'death' and destruction and what another poster defined as 'violence . Unfortunately this is ignored by many adherents to the belief that only animal farming is 'bad' ...

All farming has indirect consequences to animals and anyone who debates that is not helping to progress veganism. Even the lad growing his own spuds can kill a worm or two and as a previous post highlighted industrial scale arable farming can indirectly kill.

The definition of a vegan doesn't say "no animals should die" it says

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

All farming has indirect consequences to animals and anyone who debates that is not helping to progress veganism. Even the lad growing his own spuds can kill a worm or two and as a previous post highlighted industrial scale arable farming can indirectly kill.
The definition of a vegan doesn't say "no animals should die" it says

Which renders the conclusions of the discussion to just two points

That firstly all food production systems involve not just death but also destruction and (as added by another poster) inherent violence. Animals also die and suffer unnecessarily as part of vegan food production. If veganism wishes to convince the world of its bona fides then it needs to address this problem before preaching to others.

Secondly that the definition of veganism doesn't say 'no animals should die' is a convenient get out jail free card for vegans in that the criticicism that animals die is levelled at conventional food production at every opportunity.

The quoting of a what is in effect a vegan jingle, which bears absolutly no relation to the reality of the production and consequences of vegan foodstuffs is therefore pointless imo.

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

Which renders the conclusions of the discussion to just two points

That firstly all food production systems involve not just death but also destruction and (as added by another poster) inherent violence. Animals also die and suffer unnecessarily as part of vegan food production. If veganism wishes to convince the world of its bona fides then it needs to address this problem before preaching to others.

Secondly that the definition of veganism doesn't say 'no animals should die' is a convenient get out jail free card for vegans in that the criticicism that animals die is levelled at conventional food production at every opportunity.

The quoting of a what is in effect a vegan jingle, which bears absolutly no relation to the reality of the production and consequences of vegan foodstuffs is therefore pointless imo.

The definition of violence is intention to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. There is no intention in arable farming to hurt or kill any animal. Granted it happens, frequently but there is no intent. So in my mind there is a big distinction we set out with the intention each year to kill 70 billion animals

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

The definition of violence is intention to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. There is no intention in arable farming to hurt or kill any animal. Granted it happens, frequently but there is no intent. So in my mind there is a big distinction we set out with the intention each year to kill 70 billion animals

This from the Online dictionary

violence
behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
"violence erupted in protest marches"

It is also true that violence does not have to be premeditated or otherwise - it is a possible consequence of any act causing harm. Ergo harvesting a field where it is known there are lots of bunnies and other animals and which causes death and destruction can be said to be violent. The skinning alive of bunnies and subsequent predation by raptors is by any descriptor - a violent death.

On the other hand in animal agriculture here we have humane slaughter - where such suffering is minimised within a controled environment. Do you really think that these bunnies fare better because their slaughter was unintentional?

The use of hyperbole such as "set out with the intention each year to kill 70 billion animals" is also an absurd use of words.

Animals are farmed and yes are slaughtered as part of the process of farming. Animals die for the purpose of directly providing food for people something that cannot be claimed for the billions of bunnies, and other animals & organisms slaughtered in the process of the type of food production that many vegans ironically support as acceptable ....

Eathrin

Can I get a link on those billions of bunny deaths per year?

This study from 1993 found that only 1 out of 33 mice used in a study were killed by combine harvester over 4 separate sites. It also asserts that the lack of woodland caused by animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place.

https://ac.els-cdn.com/000632079390060E/1-s2.0-000632079390060E-main.pdf?_tid=57ae6d38-80c3-4098-8ce1-10fa7716a812&acdnat=1534873242_9d41cb2dfa853c5fc87c975ec0ecea49

Xcellor

gozunda wrote: »

This from the Online dictionary



It is also true that violence does not have to be premeditated or otherwise - it is a possible consequence of any act causing harm. Ergo harvesting a field where it is known there are lots of bunnies and other animals and which causes death and destruction can be said to be violent. The skinning alive of bunnies and subsequent predation by raptors is by any descriptor - a violent death.

On the other hand in animal agriculture here we have humane slaughter - where such suffering is minimised within a controled environment. Do you really think that these bunnies fare better because their slaughter was unintentional?

The use of hyperbole such as "set out with the intention each year to kill 70 billion animals" is also an absurd use of words.

Animals are farmed and yes are slaughtered as part of the process of farming. Animals die for the purpose of directly providing food for people something that cannot be claimed for the billions of bunnies and other animals slaughtered in the process of the type of food production that many vegans ironically support as acceptable ....

No hyperbole. Meat farming supports the raising animals to be slaughtered in epic scales. This is just going to continue to grow.

As previously mentioned bunnies are killed in the clearing and displacement to support meat farming so which results in less killing? At least bunny has the chance of dodging farm machinery, the same can't be said for the pig faced with a bolt gun and a knife to the the throat.

gozunda

Xcellor wrote: »

No hyperbole. Meat farming supports the raising animals to be slaughtered in epic scales. This is just going to continue to grow.

As previously mentioned bunnies are killed in the clearing and displacement to support meat farming so which results in less killing? At least bunny has the chance of dodging farm machinery, the same can't be said for the pig faced with a bolt gun and a knife to the the throat.

It is true that animal agriculture closely has grown to meet the planet's epic population of humans which it helps support. Animal agriculture has grown in scale along with all other forms of food production including that eaten by vegans.

In Ireland and in many other areas of the world grassland is a permanet climatic and topograhic vegetation which requires no 'clearing or displacement'. In Europe the US and many other countries it is the arable and horticultural forms of food production which most often necessitates the destruction of habitats, whole ecosystems and the death of animals and organisms through ploughing tillage and harvesting (Ireland doesn't have the same scale of arable farming due to unsuitable climate and soils)

Are you really comparing humane slaughter with the being mowed down by huge industrialised machinery skinned alive and then predated as in the example given? Do you think that a bunny or other wild animal deserves such a lottery running the regular risk of violent death so others can eat as opposed to the care and management of the pig who is dispatched quickly and cleanly?

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

Can I get a link on those billions of bunny deaths per year?
This study from 1993 found that only 1 out of 33 mice used in a study were killed by combine harvester over 4 separate sites. It also asserts that the lack of woodland caused by animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place.https://ac.els-cdn.com/000632079390060E/1-s2.0-000632079390060E-main.pdf?_tid=57ae6d38-80c3-4098-8ce1-10fa7716a812&acdnat=1534873242_9d41cb2dfa853c5fc87c975ec0ecea49

Do you have any reason to doubt the piece by a fellow vegan above who describes the type of massacre of animals involved in harvesting crops - No?

Certainly I would agree with her when she says that.

It still annoys me when my fellow vegans act as though their lifestyle is 100% cruelty free and that no animals die in the process of making their food. 

.

From what I've seen of large-scale intensive cultivation - animals do frequently and regularly get killed or maimed during the cultivation - yes It happens. This recent review of this in Australia highlights many of the current issues.

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

Regarding that study you put up - I'm afraid I could not see any of the inferences you presented as it is firmly wedged behind an impressive pay to view firewall.

A partial(?) abstract only is visible. It states:

Abstract
The effects of cereal harvesting on the ecology of wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus were investigated at three arable study sites in Oxfordshire from 1987 to 1991 using both radio-tracking and live-trapping methodologies. The process of harvesting itself had little direct effect on the mice, but the removal of the cover afforded by the crop greatly increased predation pressure on the mice. After harvest, mice either emigrated from the arable ecosystem or reduced activity. Nevertheless, over half (17 of 32) of the mice radio-collared before harvest were taken by predators in the first week following harvest. Together with emigration, this produced an 80% decrease in the population. Post-harvest activities such as stubble burning subsequently further increased mortality. The dramatic increase in prey availability may benefit predators of small mammals in the cereal ecosystem such as tawny owls Strix aluco and weasels Mustela nivalis.

From that one small (and rather dated) study it appears that over half the mice were predated after the crop being harvested due to loss of cover. A fairly significant proportion we can only presume. Other post harvesting operations such as stubble burning also increased mortality up to 80%!. The one bit of good news from the study was that predators got more to eat due to the harvest operations!

I would add that been small and very very fast (ever try to catch a mouse?) that your ordinary field mouse would be more likley to escape first pass operations than other larger mammals such as rabbits and hares etc.

My major criticism of such single view studies is that animal and other organism losses start long before harvest - with spraying of vegetation to kill it then ploughing and harrowing. Then there are the many small animals which die from poisoning by pesticides sprayed whilst the crop is growing. Then there is the harvesting and post harvesting operations where many more animals will also be killed.

I don't see anything at all about the study asserting "that the lack of woodland caused by animal agriculture"???

This was a UK study afaik and land clearances there as in Ireland are many many millennia old and certainly cannot be put down to 'animal agriculture' one way or the other.

As for the addition of the piece stating that "animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place." is straight from vegan slogans 101 - Lol.

I would suggest we need a lot more of this type of study. Studies which look at what happens from pre-cultivation right through to harvest and beyond. Not pretty or nice to read but they will provide for better understanding of what those on the ground are reporting.

Eathrin

gozunda wrote: »

Do you have any reason to doubt the piece by a fellow vegan above who describes the type of massacre of animals involved in harvesting crops - No?

Certainly I would agree with her when she says that.

From what I've seen of large-scale intensive cultivation - animals do frequently and regularly get killed or maimed during the cultivation - yes It happens. This recent review of this in Australia highlights many of the current issues

Nobody here is denying that some animals get killed in cultivation...
You're telling me that billions of rabbits get killed every year and can't provide a source.

As an aside, in general I would have more reason to doubt a quora response than a scientific paper. Fellow vegan also means very little to me. Does fellow meat eater mean something to you? Take an extreme example. Pol Pot believed that non-agarian folk should be exterminated. Why would I blindly believe something said by a "fellow vegan". Like that weird video you linked in the other thread. Absolute nonsense.

Anyway, I'm not denying the above quote, of course it happens.

Regarding that study you put up - I'm afraid I could not see any of the inferences you presented as it is firmly wedged behind an impressive pay to view firewall.

The entire thing is free to view. There's no paywall.

A partial(?) abstract only is visible. It states:


From that one small (and rather dated) study it appears that over half the mice were predated after the crop being harvested due to loss of cover. A fairly significant proportion we can only presume. Other post harvesting operations such as stubble burning also increased mortality up to 80%!. The one bit of good news from the study was that predators got more to eat due to the harvest operations!

Yes, animals eat other animals in nature. I said that if so much land wasn't being used for grazing, there would be far far more woodland for these creatures to live and they wouldn't be resorting to wheat fields.

I would add that been small and very very fast (ever try to catch a mouse?) that your ordinary field mouse would be more likley to escape first pass operations than other larger mammals such as rabbits and hares etc.

Yeah those rabbits and hares are known for being awful slow pokes.

My major criticism of such single view studies is that animal and other organism losses start long before harvest - with spraying of vegetation to kill it then ploughing and harrowing. Then there are the many small animals which die from poisoning by pesticides sprayed whilst the crop is growing. Then there is the harvesting and post harvesting operations where many more animals will also be killed.

Nobody is denying that this happens. Perhaps it won't always have to happen with more humane pesticides. Veganism is about intent to reduce harm.

As for the addition of the piece stating that "animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place." is straight from vegan slogans 101 - Lol.

Nothing wrong with truth. Animal agriculture is horribly inefficient and this will never change. If you cared about other humans you wouldn't be wasting water, land and air resources needlessly.

I would suggest we need a lot more of this type of study. Studies which look at what happens from pre-cultivation right through to harvest and beyond. Not pretty or nice to read but they will provide for better understanding of what those on the ground are reporting.

Yes and as always, if you could provide a single reputable source for any of the nonsense you go on about that would be wonderful.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

.....

As you said "

Eathrin wrote:

I'm not denying the above quote, of course it happens.

Yes it does. Billions of animals and other organisms - (including rabbits) are killed in this way. (At least read the original comment)

Your sources for agricultural knowledge ref. 'efficiency' use of land etc etc appear to come from vegan websites and are at best generalities.

The article you linked remains 'pay to view'.
Your conclusions and what was given in the abstract (the only bit available to read) do not match

You should first answer the many questions asked above before continuing to demand others answer yours.

Eathrin

Look, you're quite clearly trolling. You dismiss fact based research and fail to provide any proper information of your own. Anything you do acknowledge you attempt to discredit with falsities. Oxford University is not a "vegan website". Why do you even post here if you're going to make up such drivel?

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

...

Your linked article cannot be read as it is PAY TO VIEW

Your conclusions in no way match the abstract.

As per standard you have resorted to more ad hominem.


¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯. 

Eathrin

Do you know what ad hominem means? I'm not attacking your character, I'm attacking the content of what you post. That's fair game.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

Do you know what ad hominem means? I'm not attacking your character, I'm attacking the content of what you post. That's fair game.

^^
Arguing for the sake of arguing despite obvious evidence otherwise is devisive and pointless.

Definition of ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

A small example of your ad hominem and deliberate dissonance from above

'nonsense you go on about'
'Why do you even post here if you're going to 'make up such drivel?'
'If you cared about other humans'
'trolling'

In doing so you've have completely
derailed what was shaping up as a good discussion. Well done you.

gozunda

Finally getting back to the discussion and to clarify - the article linked by you Eathrin is pay to view only.

I have included a screenshot of that link below.
The word 'purchase' at the top of the screen is clearly indicated.

As I am interested in fair discussion - I emailed someone I know in academia and they were able to access same from their university account.

You said

eathrin wrote:

This study from 1993 found that only 1 out of 33 mice used in a study were killed by combine harvester over 4 separate sites. It also asserts that the lack of woodland caused by animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place.

Nowhere on that paper is there any reference or mention that (sic) -

"It also asserts that the lack of woodland caused by animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place."

The above was an insertion by you with the aim of attempting to weigh the above argument. Unfortunately it to amounts to little more than gross misinformation.

What the paper does say is:

. The wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus, a generalist small mammal with catholic dietary (Pelz 1989) and habitat (Wolton & Flowerdew, 1985) requirements, has been particularly successful at exploiting farmland and occurs in that habitat throughout the year (Green, 1979; Tew, 1989; Loman, 1991).

The paper also details that a large percentage of the mice (approx 80%) mice were killed as a consequence of harvesting through the removal of cover and predation and also caused by stubble burning and associated harvest activities.

All fair enough and interesting findings imo.

However no genuine discussion of any subject should have to be supported by deliberate misinformation or ad hominemy imo.

For a detailed and fair discussion of the role of animal agriculture wildlife and the future I would recommend the following publication.

http://wildancestors.blogspot.com/2013/01/meat-benign-extravagance.html?m=1

I am now adding you to my ignore list.

s7ryf3925pivug

That’s like in Game of Thrones when the Unsullied children are told to look after a puppy for a year and then have to kill it.

Do they get him to eat the lamb afterward? Seems pretty unnecessary and traumatic for an eight year old regardless of your view on meat farming.

I worked in an animal shelter for a summer when I was 18 and the first thing I learnt was to stay a bit detached, because some of the animals would get sick and die. An eight year old isn’t equipped to maintain emotional detachment from a creature under their care.

gozunda

Leah Wet Stoicism wrote: »

That’s like in Game of Thrones when the Unsullied children are told to look after a puppy for a year and then have to kill it.
Do they get him to eat the lamb afterward? Seems pretty unnecessary and traumatic for an eight year old regardless of your view on meat farming.
I worked in an animal shelter for a summer when I was 18 and the first thing I learnt was to stay a bit detached, because some of the animals would get sick and die. An eight year old isn’t equipped to maintain emotional detachment from a creature under their care.

Afaik from reading the article and one other news article - one of the lambs was sold on with the insinuation that it would 'eventually' be sent for slaughter. The article also indicated that these were high quality animals and that buyers were paying more than the normal rate and most likley would go for breeding. So I'm unsure what the actual outcome was tbh.

The other lamb was taken home.

The lamb wasn't being killed there and then. The kid had an understandable reaction to his sheep been sold. And yes even farmers whose animals do develop an attachment to animals in their care with feeding and looking after an animal requireing a lot of interaction. And for farmers, part of that is ensuring that when the time comes animals are dispatched in as a humame manner as possible.

McGiver

gozunda wrote: »

^^
Arguing for the sake of arguing despite obvious evidence otherwise is devisive and pointless.

Definition of ad hominem


A small example of your ad hominem and deliberate dissonance from above

'nonsense you go on about'
'Why do you even post here if you're going to 'make up such drivel?'
'If you cared about other humans'
'trolling'

In doing so you've have completely
derailed what was shaping up as a good discussion. Well done you.

What's your point exactly?

davidjtaylor

McGiver wrote: »

What's your point exactly?

Exactly McGiver.

Board rules: "This is a supportive community."

There are a number of posters who come here merely to cause trouble, either because of their vested interests or because they've way too much time on their hands and, possibly, both.

Anyone hostile to others' choices goes straight to my ignore list.

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Exactly McGiver.Board rules: "This is a supportive community." There are a number of posters who come here merely to cause trouble, either because of their vested interests or because they've way too much time on their hands and, possibly, both.Anyone hostile to others' choices goes straight to my ignore list.

Exactly what? More ad hominem is it?

Boards rule afaik is comment on the post not the poster.

Its a great pity that some do not wish to discuss the topic in hand but rather attack those that are attempting to do so.

Imo respect/manners go a long way. It's a pity that some treat any difference of opinion as 'hostile' 'vested interests' 'too much time" (sic)...

Lady Haywire

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Exactly McGiver.

Board rules: "This is a supportive community."

There are a number of posters who come here merely to cause trouble, either because of their vested interests or because they've way too much time on their hands and, possibly, both.

Anyone hostile to others' choices goes straight to my ignore list.

I'm not here to cause trouble. I'm here because i don't like to see falsified information being bandied about by non-meat/animal product eaters so I will get involved in discussions if I feel like something should be set straight.
I've said it before & I'll say it again. Everyone is welcome to eat as they wish, it's the ways some people have of going about it and trying to scare others into the same which I find abhorrent.
IMO it's this sort of consumer we should both be talking to. The majority of farmers want to raise their animals as best they can, but it's the consumer driven low prices that are making that more & more difficult each year.

If you’ve a family to feed I don’t care about how it’s raised as I’m price sensitive.

(I'm not posting the full quote in order to not drag him into the discussion but you can find it if you want to search)

davidjtaylor

Lady Haywire wrote: »

it's the consumer driven low prices that are making that more & more difficult each year.

Low prices are three-sided - consumer-driven, supermarket-driven and CAP-driven.

CAP in all its ramifications I would ditch today, possibly with the exception of enterprises under €100,000 a year turnover and a CAP 'cap' of €100,000 max.

Supermarkets are the devil in disguise, which is why they don't get any of my money. As a consumer, I like to support local people and pay a fair price.

The people who 'have a family to feed and are price-sensitive', that's a different story entirely, more to do with low pay and little to do with this forum. Indeed, veganism is the cheapest way to feed yourself and your family by far.

Lady Haywire

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Low prices are three-sided - consumer-driven, supermarket-driven and CAP-driven.

CAP in all its ramifications I would ditch today, possibly with the exception of enterprises under €100,000 a year turnover and a CAP 'cap' of €100,000 max.

Supermarkets are the devil in disguise, which is why they don't get any of my money. As a consumer, I like to support local people and pay a fair price.

The people who 'have a family to feed and are price-sensitive', that's a different story entirely, more to do with low pay and little to do with this forum. Indeed, veganism is the cheapest way to feed yourself and your family by far.

You'd probably be surprised to know how many farmers would prefer if there was no CAP payments too. It is a system which does need to be modernised & brought up to date as it's woefully biased.

I grow a good chunk of my own veg too, I'm not a manic meat-eater going around preaching the goodness of animal products. I just prefer to see a fair discussion about what goes on behind the scenes. That is all. Food waste is my biggest pet peeve yet that is a discussion for another forum.

davidjtaylor

Lady Haywire wrote: »

You'd probably be surprised to know how many farmers would prefer if there was no CAP payments too.

Maybe I would! Farmers round here love it...it's brought more destruction and loss of wildlife than all other factors combined.

Lady Haywire wrote: »

It is a system which does need to be modernised & brought up to date as it's woefully biased.

Yes, the bias, that's probably a more focused objection that my general one.

gozunda

Lady Haywire wrote:

I'm not here to cause trouble. I'm here because i don't like to see falsified information being bandied about by non-meat/animal product eaters so I will get involved in discussions if I feel like something should be set straight.

^^^
This

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Maybe I would! Farmers round here love it...it's brought more destruction and loss of wildlife than all other factors combined.

And it also subsides cheap food for many, even where many of us may not agree with those polices or otherwise.

I've also seen it written that veganism 'assumes economic security, ready access to cheap imported  foodstuffs and the leisure to construct an 'identity'.

I'm sure that is not true of all vegans. However many rely on cheap imported vegan foodstuffs which are produced for peanuts in countries with few if any environmental or ethical standards.

Farmers in Ireland have to jump through hoops to produce any type of food - animal as well as vegetable. Attacks on farmers as 'vested interests' etc are little more than inflated garbage considering the global impacts of multi-billion dollar industry involved in highly processed foodstuffs.