The Ethics of Food Production

[Cracker_Mom]

Certain natural behaviours are essential if animals are to be spared unnecessary stress. Domestic dogs, for example, require exercise and the mental stimulation of regular walks and playing. A dog that trusts its owner as a pack leader can be walked off lead in safety, where local laws allow this (my suburb is one such place). Successfully training a dog relies upon its natural sociability and instincts for pack-based behaviour and communication. In fact, the most successful training of any domestic animal is that which utilises its natural behaviours and responses. Natural behaviours can be mimicked in domesticated or captive environments, for the purpose of the animals’ welfare - this is the point of enrichment programs at zoos.

Sterilisation of domestic-bred dogs and cats is necessary to reduce the problem of overpopulation - there are already far more potential pet dogs and cats than there are people willing to care for them. There is also a safety issue involved - domestic pets are much less likely to roam and risk impoundment or accidental harm if their hormonal inducement to mate has been removed. Remember the point I have continually made about the necessity of actions. There is a moral distinction to be drawn between actions that are necessary for the animal’s wellbeing and actions that merely make them more convenient for us to use.

Consider also the degree of ‘processing’ to which factory farmed animals are subjected. Even cows that are specifically bred to produce a high milk yield are separated from their calves before the natural period of suckling has ceased; chickens that are bred to lay large numbers of eggs are starved to induce ‘shock’ laying, in order to push them even further beyond their standard capacity. Intensively farmed turkeys are not denied their ability to reproduce - but the fact that they have been bred to grow to unnatural proportions, in order to produce a maximum meat yield, means that their ‘mating’ can only be accomplished by human hands equipped with a syringe. Even the most basic natural behaviours such as foraging and grazing are restricted by confinement in intensive facilities. Animals raised in organic conditions lead much healthier lives, both physically and psychologically.

Even if you don’t care one way or another about the welfare of animals, you can’t simply dismiss arguments against intensive farming - in other words, systematic mistreatment of nonhuman animals for human convenience - by supposing that it is no different to other forms of human-animal interaction which actually value the animal’s welfare for its own sake. Ethically, there is a world of difference.

You are still picking & choosing which methods of livestock production might be more palatable to human perceptions of what animals “feel.” And our perceptions of what might constitute animal welfare.Not what is most practical to the farmer or healthy necessarily for the animal.
Domestic poultry given free range are routinely eaten by predators.Chickens & turkeys allowed to breed “naturally” can kill the hens in the process.Cows totally forget their calves when separated at birth.If a calf is allowed to suck off the mama cow you inevitably have sore,cracked cow teats & a pycho mama cow that will break down fences(& harm anyone in her path) to get to her calf.Basically you would have to give up commercial dairy farming if you followed this plan.Plus, grown heifers will go back & suck off their mom even after mama cow freshens with a new calf if they’ve learned where the milk source is when younger.
Sows not confined to farrowing crates tend to roll over & crush their young-not to mention making lunch of their own piglets.
It goes on & on.I’m not aware of folks starving laying hens in commercial egg production.
It really comes down to making a choice to farm profitably or not. The examples you provide would not portend well for a farmer’s survival.
I’ve suggested to folks locally that they visit area farms & get an idea of what really goes on & the struggles farmers face.

 

[Sair]

Psychologically!?

You’re kidding right?

Can you show me a psychological profile of a chicken from one of these farms and one from without so I can make the comparison for myself?

Is there special training involved in psychoanalyzing a chicken?

What would Freud say about all this?

I’ve seen cartoons in which the chicken lies on the couch and tells the psychiatrist all their problems, but I never considered that they may be serious.

I can’t stop laughing.

Particularly when I switch from chickens and start imagining a ‘doctor’ psychoanalyzing a cow.

Nope. Not kidding.

Psychological stress in animals - especially those on intensive farms - is an observed and documented phenomenon.

Some reading that you may find enlightening, with particular regard to chickens:

abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/07/15/1415178.htm

animalsaustralia.org/factsheets/broiler_chickens.php

Laughing at suffering - human or animal - is a sign of a lack of compassion. In this case it may also be a distancing tactic many people use (consciously or otherwise) to help them ignore animal cruelty issues - chickens can’t possibly have feelings, right? I would say enjoy your fantasy, if the effects of thinking like this were not so horrifying.

 

[Sair]

You are still picking & choosing which methods of livestock production might be more palatable to human perceptions of what animals “feel.” And our perceptions of what might constitute animal welfare.Not what is most practical to the farmer or healthy necessarily for the animal.

You confuse “animal welfare” with “human convenience”. Human perception of what is good for anyone else - other humans or other animals - is always coloured by our ideas of what is good for us. If it’s clear that animals suffer stress on intensive farms, we can still justify our actions by citing our own convenience, or better yet, think that what looks for all the world like stress in other animals can’t possibly be real stress, 'cause only humans have real stress.

See the rather circular problems involved in this discussion? On the one hand, you accuse me of selectively assuming that certain practices inflict misery upon farmed animals. Trouble with that approach is that you are doing exactly the same thing, but from the opposite direction. You deny that it’s possible for animals to function in any way that might be similar to the way humans function. All things considered, my assumptions are more biologically sound, and if they err, they err on the side of compassion, not convenience.

Does it occur to you that the negative behaviours you mention might actually be the result of psychological stress upon the animals involved? So how do we fix it? Apparently, the convenient solution is to increase the stress…

 

[vz71]

Psychologically!?

You’re kidding right?

Can you show me a psychological profile of a chicken from one of these farms and one from without so I can make the comparison for myself?

Is there special training involved in psychoanalyzing a chicken?

What would Freud say about all this?

…

I can’t stop laughing.

Laughing at suffering - human or animal - is a sign of a lack of compassion. In this case it may also be a distancing tactic many people use (consciously or otherwise) to help them ignore animal cruelty issues - chickens can’t possibly have feelings, right? I would say enjoy your fantasy, if the effects of thinking like this were not so horrifying.

Wow.
What we have here is an example of selective reading.

Reading my quote, it is plainly obvious what I am laughing at.
Reading yours, it is obvious you are assuming I am laughing at something else.

I’m still waiting on that psychological profile of a chicken.

Please provide it.

 

[vz71]

animalsaustralia.org/factsheets/broiler_chickens.php

Makes no mention at all of the psychoanalysis that you spoke of.


Where is it? I am sure you have a valid source…right?
People do study for years to become livestock psychologists…right?

 

[vz71]

abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/07/15/1415178.htm

And this article as well makes no mention of psychological profiles of chickens.

So tell us again, how do we happen upon knowing that they are psychologically stressed chickens?

 

[Sair]

Wow.
What we have here is an example of selective reading.

Reading my quote, it is plainly obvious what I am laughing at.
Reading yours, it is obvious you are assuming I am laughing at something else.

I’m still waiting on that psychological profile of a chicken.

Please provide it.

What’s clear is that you’re trying to side-step the fact that you have no intention of taking my arguments seriously.

But, hey, you don’t have to believe me. Read any book, article or website (such as the ones I linked to in the previous post) related to animal welfare on factory farms, and you’ll find ample information regarding mental, emotional - in other words, psychological stress, as well as plenty of physical suffering.

Animal minds may be simpler than human minds (some human minds, anyway…) but they are still worthy of consideration.

 

[Marfran]

By now it should be crystal clear where I stand, and why. Maintaining the status quo is not necessarily noble or virtuous, but neither is change only for the sake of change. I am speculating as to the probable consequences of a more humane approach to farming, but in the light of the comparison outlined above, I prefer to err on the side of compassion.

APPLAUDE

 

[vz71]

What’s clear is that you’re trying to side-step the fact that you have no intention of taking my arguments seriously.

I take serious arguments seriously.
Perhaps the problem lies in the argument presented…

But, hey, you don’t have to believe me. Read any book, article or website (such as the ones I linked to in the previous post) related to animal welfare on factory farms, and you’ll find ample information regarding mental, emotional - in other words, psychological stress, as well as plenty of physical suffering.

I did.
The articles you provided said nothing about psychology at all.

Animal minds may be simpler than human minds (some human minds, anyway…) but they are still worthy of consideration.

Consideration, yes.
But not to be considered over the needs of man.
We are the creature made in God’s image, not the these animals.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

You confuse “animal welfare” with “human convenience”. Human perception of what is good for anyone else - other humans or other animals - is always coloured by our ideas of what is good for us. If it’s clear that animals suffer stress on intensive farms, we can still justify our actions by citing our own convenience, or better yet, think that what looks for all the world like stress in other animals can’t possibly be real stress, 'cause only humans have real stress.

See the rather circular problems involved in this discussion? On the one hand, you accuse me of selectively assuming that certain practices inflict misery upon farmed animals. Trouble with that approach is that you are doing exactly the same thing, but from the opposite direction. You deny that it’s possible for animals to function in any way that might be similar to the way humans function. All things considered, my assumptions are more biologically sound, and if they err, they err on the side of compassion, not convenience.

Does it occur to you that the negative behaviours you mention might actually be the result of psychological stress upon the animals involved? So how do we fix it? Apparently, the convenient solution is to increase the stress…

You bet I’m thinking of human convenience. Why would farmers not consider convenience & practicality unless they’re pursuing an expensive hobby-which is what farming would become if animal rights folks had their way.
Stressed animals do not gain weight, provide milk, nor reproduce well. It’s not in the farmer’s interest to stress his livestock.
What “misery” does artificial insemination inflict on animals? We always used this method for our dairy cows.Didn’t hear any complaints.
Which negative behaviors? Dogs chasing & eating cats & livestock? Dogs think this is recreational. Some sows are just plain bad mamas.They’ll eat their young for the heck of it.And they’ll do it in a nice clean, roomy barn stall with plenty of straw.Come on…You fix the problem by making a barrier between mama sow & the piglets.
It’s a free country-at least for the time being-and folks can post as they choose, but it would be a whole lot more profitable for those who want to change agricultural practices to have some practical experience in the same.;

 

[Marfran]

You’d be surprised at the number of people I have seen doing just that - advocating that humans can treat animals however we like, just because they’re not human. I don’t see that I am creating false equivalence - I am not talking about granting dogs the vote or sending chimps to university! What I see is that those who argue for a human-centred ethic are creating a false distinction between the basic rights of humans and the basic rights of animals, when those rights stem from the same basic needs. Bear in mind that what is known as an animal-centred ethic (of the kind that Singer advocates) must necessarily account for the needs of humans, because we’re animals too.

APPLAUD:thumbsup:

 

[Marfran]

The reason we have milk cows that produce enough milk to provide protein to human beings is because we have selectively bred dairy cows that way for hundreds of years.

SAIR: What is the history of mass dairy production? Didn’t the chemist Louis Pasteur have a lot to do with getting milk to the masses by discovering the process of pasteurization in the 1860’s. Pasteurization kills the bacteria in milk, doesn’t it? And why do we do things to cow’s milk (like remove the fat–2%, 1%, skim) if it is a healthy, nutritious, natural food that we are meant to consume? It seems that we must do a lot of things (procedures), to foods that we were meant to consume.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Cracker Mom;5056397:

The reason we have milk cows that produce enough milk to provide protein to human beings is because we have selectively bred dairy cows that way for hundreds of years.

SAIR: What is the history of mass dairy production? Didn’t the chemist Louis Pasteur have a lot to do with getting milk to the masses by discovering the process of pasteurization in the 1860’s. Pasteurization kills the bacteria in milk, doesn’t it? And why do we do things to cow’s milk (like remove the fat–2%, 1%, skim) if it is a healthy, nutritious, natural food that we are meant to consume? It seems that we must do a lot of things

(procedures), to foods that we were meant to consume.

What does that have to do with breeding cattle to produce more milk?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Cracker Mom;5056397:

The reason we have milk cows that produce enough milk to provide protein to human beings is because we have selectively bred dairy cows that way for hundreds of years.

SAIR: What is the history of mass dairy production? Didn’t the chemist Louis Pasteur have a lot to do with getting milk to the masses by discovering the process of pasteurization in the 1860’s. Pasteurization kills the bacteria in milk, doesn’t it? And why do we do things to cow’s milk (like remove the fat–2%, 1%, skim) if it is a healthy, nutritious, natural food that we are meant to consume? It seems that we must do a lot of things

(procedures), to foods that we were meant to consume.

It’s pretty well known fact that milk is good for you. Especially women. But, I guess if we cut that out and let the dairy cows roam the range, it would open up a job market for human milk. Peta has already suggested this, I’m sure there would be some things done to that milk before people would drink it though too.

Maybe female Peta supporters would be interested in a job providing breast milk to everyone.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Marfran;5057951:

It’s pretty well known fact that milk is good for you. Especially women. But, I guess if we cut that out and let the dairy cows roam the range, it would open up a job market for human milk. Peta has already suggested this, I’m sure there would be some things done to that milk before people would drink it though too.

Maybe female Peta supporters would be interested in a job providing breast milk to everyone.

 

[vz71]

Marfran;5057951:

Maybe female Peta supporters would be interested in a job providing breast milk to everyone.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

bbarrick8383;5058006:

I think the “Quote” got mixed up here as far as who posted it but it’s still funny.

 

[Marfran]

If you are familiar with the story of Temple Grandin, you will know, for example, that she found that while many people interpreted the misbehavior of cows in slaughterhouses to relate to the cows’ knowledge that they were about to be slaughtered, instead it was the surroundings (lighting, obstacles in the runway, etc.) that in fact caused cows discomfort. Corrected, the animals go to slaughter relatively placidly. Sentience is not what you might think it is.

I am familiar with Temple Grandin and think that she should overseer the slaughter industry. A very valuable contributor to keeping agribusiness humane. Circumstances, sounds, objects, shadows–things that would not cause a human fear can be very upsetting and cause stress to an animal. I APPAUD her efforts and contribution.
Sentience (as defined by Websters): capacity for feeling or perceiving consciousness.
Human beings are sentient beings, as are animals.

I work with animals and must often prepare them for and/or administer medical procedures. (I am not talking about pets.) All animals feel pain and show fear from different stimuli. It is humane to lessen and relieve pain and fear to an animal. Zoos, wildlife rehab facilities, veterinarians–all consider the pain, comfort, and stresses of their patients–and agribusiness can do many simple things to see that animals are not unneccessarily stressed, frightened, or subjected to prolonged pain. Humans care about their pets, yet subscribe to a different belief system for agriculture animals. Is this rational? Is it OK because they give us food? Or, because they give us food, we should consider their pain/suffering/stress?

Does anyone have a dog? Dogs are notorious for not liking the mail carrier. Does anyone know why? It is that the mail carrier is often a different shape than other human beings. The mail carrier has a big bag of mail that gives him/her a different shape, or is carrying boxes that also make the mail carrier into a different shape. Same goes for the boy down the block who your dog likes, but when carrying his large musical instrument in the big black case (because he has band practice)–your dog barks and reacts negatively to.

Yes, animals may react differently to different visual and audio stimuli than we do–but that does not make them less sentient.

For those who work with animals, we must acknowledge this and adjust accordingly. Differences in perception of environmental stimuli do not make a living being less sentient, or sentient-free. .

 

[Marfran]

bbarrick8383;5058006:

This is not my quote. Mary (Marfran)

 

[Marfran]

Marfran;5057951:

It’s pretty well known fact that milk is good for you. Especially women.

You’ll have to quote your source. What kind of milk is good for you? Cow’s milk? Whole cow’s milk? 1% 2% Skim?

The most recent literature is saying that goats milk is superior to cows. Something about smaller molecules.

Milk is especially good for women?

I don’t get that one.

P.S. Countries that consume the most dairy have a higher incidence of osteoporosis. Human bones must leech calcium to be able to absorb the concentration of calcium in cow’s milk.