Mindfully Eating Animals - how to have your meat, and not participate in factory farming

[Flaxbee]

Bad news for meat eaters, you'll probably eat less meat because it will be more expensive due to the fact that it is produced ethically and humanely.

Good news for everyone, you'll be healthier and will not be participating in the suffering of billions of animals.

Pretty good trade-off.

<<snip>>

Moving somewhat closer to a potentially viable situation — at least until about 50 years ago — take the hypothetical picture of a small farm where they raise their own animals and ensure they live a healthy life. The animals are protected and given the reign to behave more or less as their species naturally would, and they’re killed humanely (zapped unconscious before they are quickly executed).

If you could get your meat from farmers like these, and you did it in moderation, I wouldn’t personally see a big problem with occasionally eating meat from these animals. That is to say, if you could TRULY verify that, indeed, the animals were treated well in life AND in their execution, I think it might be OK. I may not be totally happy with myself in this position, but I could probably look myself in the mirror and say that I am a mindful person, that I am a good person, that I can consider myself a conscious and conscientious person of moral worth.

The problem is, it’s almost impossible to find real small farmers like this anymore, let alone slaughter houses that ensure a humane execution. There are a few exceptions, and it is DEFINITELY possible to find them, but upwards of 99 percent of all animals raised for eating in the US are factory farmed.

Call them ‘the other 99 percent.’

Everyone knows that these “farms” are basically death camps, and if you watch a film about these places it’s pretty much guaranteed to be a horror film. Across the board, the conditions these animals are forced to endure through their lives, and through their executions, are unthinkably horrible. The suffering they endure from genetic bodily modifications and conditions in the factories is massive. It’s an unthinkable nightmare beyond anything you could watch in the theater.

Full text here: http://satyacolombo.com/mindfully-eating-animals/

[msongs]

1. or you could quit eating dead animals - save money, be healthier etc nt

[Flaxbee]

3. well, true, that. That's my choice, but a lot of people claim they could never ever

give up meat (ridiculous unless there are real health issues).

And I'd rather have a meat industry governed by humane practices than what we have now.

[Mojorabbit]

29. I know people who drop the pasture fed cow right in t he field

so it never suffers the slaughterhouse thing . My husband bow hunts and I mostly only eat wild pork and venison that has run free it's entire life. Chicken, however is my downfall. I have a half dozen for eggs but I need to find a good place to buy the meat.

[Flaxbee]

13. Glad to hear your taste buds take precedence over the suffering of others.

And "some activists" have, in the past, changed the world's perception of what is and is not humane. We haven't finished taking care of humans yet, and maybe never will. But our other fellow travelers on this planet should be treated much, much better.

If we look at everything through the eyes of business, we are truly a reprehensible species.

[NuclearDem]

19. 15,000,000 people in this country didn't find it particularly silly.

[NuclearDem]

18. It's really great that you get some joy from animals being flayed alive and bled out.

And if you're not good enough a cook to make vegetarian substitutes that taste just as good, if not better, than meat, than I'm sorry for you.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. I've been to many slaughterhouses and it's horrible!

There's no guarantee that they aren't killing infested animals. I'll stick to my nutloaves.

[Flaxbee]

4. this group seems to be a very good example; Niman Ranch

http://www.nimanranch.com/Index.aspx

If they were all like this, the world would be a much healthier, happier place.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. Good

anyhting to get away from factory farming

[pipoman]

9. LOL..probably good meat...but it better be...lol

With ribeye steak selling for...are you ready? $32 per pound (hint, it is sub $10 at the meat counter)..who do you think can afford to eat this...aside from the 1%ers who wish to feel good about themselves at any cost?

[Flaxbee]

16. Eat less meat, and what you do eat, be glad it's humanely farmed. I do agree prices are high,

but so is anything with a niche market.

Fancy pants quinoa is costly, cruelty-free beauty products are costly. But in order to expand the market, I don't mind paying more - I just use less.

Solar, wind, alternative energy sources were much higher until they became accepted and more widely used; doesn't mean we shouldn't have pushed for alternative energy just because solar panels were more expensive a decade ago.

Small steps. But they need to be taken.

[pnwmom]

21. Nothing is as simple as it sometimes appears. For example, "fancy pants quinoa"

used to be the main diet staple for the poor farming communities who grew it. Now that there is so much worldwide demand for it, they can't afford it and have turned to cheaper and less nutritious grains.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa

SNIP

is an unpalatable truth to face for those of us with a bag of quinoa in the larder. The appetite of countries such as ours for this grain has pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper. In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the cities, and fuelled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture.

In fact, the quinoa trade is yet another troubling example of a damaging north-south exchange, with well-intentioned health and ethics-led consumers here unwittingly driving poverty there. It's beginning to look like a cautionary tale of how a focus on exporting premium foods can damage the producer country's food security. Feeding our apparently insatiable 365-day-a-year hunger for this luxury vegetable, Peru has also cornered the world market in asparagus. Result? In the arid Ica region where Peruvian asparagus production is concentrated, this thirsty export vegetable has depleted the water resources on which local people depend. NGOs report that asparagus labourers toil in sub-standard conditions and cannot afford to feed their children while fat cat exporters and foreign supermarkets cream off the profits. That's the pedigree of all those bunches of pricy spears on supermarket shelves.

Soya, a foodstuff beloved of the vegan lobby as an alternative to dairy products, is another problematic import, one that drives environmental destruction [see footnote]. Embarrassingly, for those who portray it as a progressive alternative to planet-destroying meat, soya production is now one of the two main causes of deforestation in South America, along with cattle ranching, where vast expanses of forest and grassland have been felled to make way for huge plantations.

Three years ago, the pioneering Fife Diet, Europe's biggest local food-eating project, sowed an experimental crop of quinoa. It failed, and the experiment has not been repeated. But the attempt at least recognised the need to strengthen our own food security by lessening our reliance on imported foods, and looking first and foremost to what can be grown, or reared, on our doorstep.

In this respect, omnivores have it easy. Britain excels in producing meat and dairy foods for them to enjoy. However, a rummage through the shopping baskets of vegetarians and vegans swiftly clocks up the food miles, a consequence of their higher dependency on products imported from faraway places. From tofu and tamari to carob and chickpeas, the axis of the vegetarian shopping list is heavily skewed to global.

SNIP

[NuclearDem]

35. Ugh, that article again. Because only vegans and vegetarians eat quinoa and soy.

Meat eaters love to cite this article so they (people giving business to the environmental, labor, and animal rights monstrosities that are factory farms and who also probably get their meat from faraway places with similar labor problems) can shame vegans (who don't do the factory farm thing).

Couple of factual things though:

1) The soy the author claims is destroying the rainforest in South America is for livestock consumption, not for human diets.
2) Quinoa is a seed, not a grain.

[pipoman]

23. You may have the disposable cash to throw away..

I and others are trying to get by..."eat less" means eat more of something else...I already eat less meat than I used to..I'll wait until you have bought enough to bring the price down..except what is being suggested means the price can't come down because the cost of production is necessarily increased by using these practices..

[NuclearDem]

27. Hell, even cutting back on chicken for one day a week

is essentially the environmental equivalent of removing thousands of cars from the road.

Even a little bit can go a long way.

[pipoman]

32. ?

Do you mean everyone in the US cutting out chicken (the cheapest meat protein available) one day a week? And where can we find the justification/documentation for this somewhat unbelievable statement?

[NuclearDem]

36. UN report on environmental impact

http://www.uneptie.org/shared/publications/pdf/WEBx0165xPA-PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Summary_EN.pdf

Americans consume the most meat out of any other country. Even the majority of Americans cutting out chicken once a week would have that enormous environmental impact.

By the way, you'll get more protein from nuts and beans than you would from chicken. Plus, they're healthier.

[pipoman]

38. I eat nuts and beans and meat..

we eat more meat because we have the means for production of more meat. Why do those who rail about the various food consumption inequalities between the US and the rest of the world engage in actively trying to raise the availability to the rest of the world instead of trying to reduce US consumption to the level of the "rest of the world"? 50 miles south of the US border are farmers who have to carry water to their livestock by hand because there is no electricity and the equipment to pump water would be stolen...in 2013...who's to blame? The Mexican government and aristocracy is who...we have entered into agreements with this country, which can't even come to the age of electricity, with no requirement for the betterment of their society..food production is limited by lack of will or oppressive government...there are millions of square miles of prime farm ground in countries with oppressive government regimes which make production impossible..

[pipoman]

7. Meat production is what it is,

and since 98+% of the population eat meat in some form or other it won't be changing soon..around 50 billion animals per year. And no, there isn't going to be a mass movement to animals living on grassy knolls to their final days when they are given laughing gas, then allowed to drift off to neverland..because people can barely afford to buy groceries at the commercial production prices. Sounds like this was written by the same type who belittles others for not driving a prius while taking a private jet to Hilton Head.

Oh, and what the hell does "and they’re killed humanely (zapped unconscious before they are quickly executed)." mean?

Then there are those here who bemoan those of us who hunt deer annually and eat 200 lbs of free range, steroid and antibiotic free meat as something less than they who buy theirs in the grocery meat counter.

Of coarse I support anyone's choice to eat what they wish..wish others could do the same..

[cynatnite]

11. They also use captive bolt pistols, too.

It damaged the brain or would stun the cows into unconsciousness depending on the type and how it was used.

[pipoman]

12. Yep, I don't know of any slaughterhouse

not wishing for a quick end...they aren't wanting a bunch of wounded 1200 lb beasts roaming about either..

[cynatnite]

8. I suppose one could put "humanely killed" on the label...

so the consumer would feel better about eating it.

I'm not making light of this, but surely someone will see how ludicrous this sounds. Would putting a bullet in the back of the head of each cow constitute a humane killing? You can't use lethal injection on an animal that would be intended for consumption.

How are you going to find a slaughterhouse that humanely kills animals to your satisfaction? What would be "humane" in your eyes?

Death is not clean or humane whatsoever. It's not meant to be. It's pain, it's tragedy, it's dark and it is NOT humane no matter what kind of animal is dying. It's messy, gross and disgusting. There is no such thing as a clean and antiseptic death.

Reading this kind of stuff can make you think we're awful to treat animals this way, but you're looking at feeding hundreds of millions of people. We're not Neanderthals anymore. We're not living in an age of kill the cow, butcher it and put it in the butcher shop any longer.

We have to raise and kill these animals as if it were a production line. That's exactly what it is. There is no other alternative given how many mouths are to be fed.

If your conscience gets the better of you about how these animals are raised, fed, cared for and killed, then go vegetarian or look for those farms and ranches that fit your criteria for how animals are cared for and then killed to keep you fed.

I've worked in sale barns and farms. We've handled cattle that were raised to be butchered and sold in a supermarket. We've done things to them that many here would swear was animal cruelty. It sure isn't pretty and the cows hated it, but that's the price to pay to make them edible and safe to eat. It's the price the USDA and the consumers demand in order to feed them.

[pipoman]

10. Well of coarse the practice of "zapping" them is far more humane..lol

[Jenoch]

14. Our family eats beef that is

raised in a pasture. The clover hay the cattle eat when not in the pasture is grown, cut, and baled on our land. I have no problems with eating beef.

[functioning_cog]

15. I support this premise. It's a good way to go for people who don't want to go vegetarian

you can at least have more ethically raised meat and it will be less inhumane AND the end product is so much better anyway.

[pipoman]

24. Assuming of coarse you can afford $30/lb meat..

[functioning_cog]

26. well, in many parts of the world...meat is treated like a "not every day" kind of thing

there are plenty of ways to get protein without meat for the days where you don't have it. I seriously doubt ground beef or whole chicken would be $30/lb if raised in a humane way.

[pipoman]

31. I live here. Here in the heart of livestock production country..

I have little to look forward to but a decent meal. I won't/don't feel guilty for eating affordable food including meat...if steak is 3 times more at $30, hamburger will be 3 times more too at $10 or 12..

[functioning_cog]

37. I know we probably have different perspectives...but if you try

you can actually have much more than a "decent" meal using a fraction of the meat you may consume today. There are many ways to cook meat as a complement to other ingredients that are much more satisfying than a steak or pork chop or hamburger.

[NuclearDem]

25. Agreed.

It's not perfect, but any way to take away business from the environmental, labor, and animal abuse disasters that are factory farms is a positive step.

[reformist2]

22. I thought this was going to be about those new laboratory-grown chicken pieces.

[KT2000]

30. We have such a source

actually two.
A family run operation raises cattle without antibiotics and hormones etc. The cost is higher but worth it. They are treated well.
The farm next to me raises organic grass fed cattle. They live on some of the most beautiful real estate in the world. They breathe sea air, have a view of the water and Canada as well as the Olympic Mountains. They have acres of lush green grass to live on as they are not housed. They are well cared for.

Guess you could call them the 1% of the bovine world - and lucky.

[Cronus Protagonist]

33. I've moved on to raw food now

Lamb is hard to eat, though - they squeal ever so much.

[Flaxbee]

34. Another argument - if the animal suffering doesn't bother you, how about the water consumption?

Really, the argument that factory farming is the only way to feed the world is completely wrong.

It takes huge amounts of fresh water to produce meat (especially beef), and it is unsustainable.

We have to change our practices, if not for humane reasons, which I argue are reason enough, but for the sustainability of this planet and all of its life. Nothing can live without fresh water. If fracking outrages you, so should factory farming. And you shouldn't dismiss the information just because you like a quick, cheap burger.

Beef: The ''King'' of the Big Water Footprints:
http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/1143/beef-the-king-of-the-big-water-footprints

snip:
So the question remains: Is there one figure that seems most accurate and useful? I lean towards the Water Footprint Network’s (WFN) 1,799 gallons of water per pound of beef figure for two reasons. First, they have created and standardized the rigorous methods behind water footprinting. Second, they use large, global data sets that incorporate many beef production systems from numerous countries. (Also, in the interest of statistics, it’s reasonable to discard the two extremes within the range [the outliers]—12,008 and 441.)

The bottom line is that it takes a lot of water to produce beef, especially when just a fraction of that water can be used to produce much more food with much lower water footprints.

Regarding the Prince and his 2,000-gallon figure—His Royal Highness appears to be fairly close to the WFN’s mark. And to his larger point of beef’s stampede for resources – water, energy, grain – he couldn’t be more correct: Eating the amount of beef that American’s do, at over 60 pounds annually, is exhausting our resources and is unsustainable, especially when considering growing consumption patterns around the world.

In the end, the actual number is not what’s important. The bottom line is that it takes a lot of water to produce beef, especially when just a fraction of that water can be used to produce much more food with much lower water footprints. Instead of simply accepting that beef consumption will soar and hold the world’s overstressed freshwater resources for a king’s ransom, where Prince Charles is concerned, a meal with little or no beef is meal fit for a prince.