To think you can be an animal lover and eat meat?

[MyOtherUsernameisaPun]

I know I'm going to be flamed, have donned protective gear...

But I think that it's hypocritical to eat meat and claim to be an animal lover. That isn't to say meat eaters don't deeply love their pets - I fully accept that they do! But I think that in those cases they only love certain animals, not animals generally.

We know that pigs are far more intelligent than dogs. We know that cows form close social bonds with specific individuals within the herd. We know enough to confidently state that there is no reason to separate pets from any other species except that we are conventionally accustomed to doing so.

I think everyone is free to make their own choices and whether or not I approve of them is totally irrelevant. But I don't think there is any logical grounds for a meat eater to claim that they are an animal lover when they're happy for some kinds of animals to suffer and be killed.

Of course, you can. Without meat eaters, there would be no cows pigs and sheep. The important thing is that they have as good a life as they can possibly have, are treated well at all times and killed very humanely and quickly without stress at abattoirs or transport. There are things that need to improve

@IrianOfW the human demand for grain would be significantly less if no one ate meat - it takes a lot more grain to produce a pound of beef than it does for a human to eat the calorie equivalent in grain itself. Intensive farming is always bad for the environment, but there would be much less of it overall without the meat industry.

@Orlandointhewilderness I think it would be a shame to lose these breeds, of course - but I still don't think that's an adequate justification for the meat industry. Many of these breeds only came into existence due to intensive selective breeding, and it may be that without that breeding there just isn't a place for them. Unless vegetarian hobbyists would happily keep them going

It seems you have most of your 'facts' from the likes of 'cowspiracy' and other American sources OP.

It's clear from your posts that you actually have very little knowledge of how the UK farming industry operates - it is significantly different to other parts of the world.

I have no fucking clue where you got the idea that lambs are routinely killed at 10 weeks old - that's perhaps the case on the continent where there is a market for whole roast lambs but certainly for the UK market that would be an entirely pointless thing to do.

As a farmer I don't particularly care if people want to be vegetarian, vegan etc etc, it's all food at the end of the day but what DOES annoy me is people who spout poorly informed internet research to backup their dietary choices, whilst simultaneously completely ignoring the vast damage that many crops such as quinoa, almonds, soya etc are doing to the environment in other parts of the world.

Eggs and Dairy in my opinion are the two cruellest farming industries, but even then I don't agree the animals involved actually suffer as much as the internet would like you to believe. You may chirrup 'but I only buy free range so that's ok' but I can guarantee that non free range eggs and imported dairy from other countries are in huge amounts of stuff you don't even realise.

The stupid thing is that what proper farmers and vegetarians generally have in common is that they feel that the mass production of animals for cheap meat is inherently wrong. Rather than sniping at each other they should be joining forces to demand that supermarkets/ governments only allow for high welfare meat. I get that many people are in food poverty as it is but meat is a privilege not a right and there is a huge amount of wastage in all parts of the food chain which needs to be righted. The infamous 'mumsnet chicken' is exactly how meat should be treated and you shouldn't be able to pick up two chickens for a fiver in Tesco.

Completely agree with scrowy

@meel yes sorry for the misleading title typo!

Are you an arable farmer in the UK? If so its unlikely you would be affected as we don't produce enough food for our population as it is. The areas that would, happily, see a decrease are places like South America where the amazon rainforest is being cleared by football pitches every day to make way for crops sent to Europe and the USA to feed our vastly over inflated meat industry.

MyOtherUsernameisaPun, I do get the distinction but I don't understand how that all fits with your argument that you can't eat meat and be an animal lover.

Humans have had meat as part of their diet for the most part of their human history, so it is entirely natural that meat is included as a source of food. Humans have also cared for animals for a very long time too, so that comes naturally to us as well. The human impact on earth is huge and very significant and I'm all for looking at how best we can use the earth's resources sensibly and respectfully and for me that includes food sources.

However, none of that has anything to do with whether or not I can truly love animals and be a meat eater!!!!!!

Why are you banging on about 'grain'!?

Our 200 cows eat grass in summer and fermented grass (silage) in winter. No grains were harmed in the production of our cows.

We live on the top of an effing mountain. What else are we supposed to do with all the grass (the only thing that will grow) other than feed it to cows and sheep? Genuinely baffled.

@MargoLovebutter because in one instance you are killing an animal as a necessary evil to prevent more significant harm from occurring

Significant harm for whom? What is it that makes a given harm significant enough to justify killing another animal? What makes one animal more important than another?

I also may have mentioned it in another thread, but will nobody think of the plants? They also have feelings. Not to mention mushrooms.

I'm an animal lover and I eat meat. But animal agriculture does contribute massively to our dwindling resources. It takes tones of water to make one beef burger.

It's more sound to eat a vegetarian or vegan diet because it's better for the planet though. And that's the truth.

@Scrowy I've never heard of cowspiracy, sorry. Some of the sources I've used today are Forbes, the BBC, the Guardian, Greenpeace, People and Planet and a couple of scholarly examples. I'm happy for you to point out specific facts which you think are wrong and provide sources for that.

I also never limited my comments to the UK - I think it's pretty clear from the thread that this is a discussion on the worldwide impact of meat eating.

I don't think you can ask vegetarians to fight for higher welfare standard instead of fighting for their actual beliefs. Higher standards are all well and good and I would support them - and even campaign for them - but not at the expense of advocating for people giving up meat because there is no cruelty-free way to participate in the meat industry.

I agree that eggs and dairy are terrible which is why I only consume eggs from my own hens and very rare dairy (moving towards giving up completely). I disagree that these industries aren't as cruel as I'm suggesting - ground up male chicks anyone?

I also agree that some crops do a lot of damage, environmentally. I try to be conscientious about that. It's still significantly less harm than the meat industry, however.

I agree that the cheapness of meat is hugely concerning.

Significant harm for whom? What is it that makes a given harm significant enough to justify killing another animal? What makes one animal more important than another?

I think these are all really valid questions, and they have to be answered on a case by case basis.

Using the red deer example - red deer have no natural predators in Scotland, and when they overpopulate an area they destroy the habitat through overgrazing and trampling. This means that smaller animals like hares, hedgehogs, squirrels, mice etc are competing for fewer resources and their numbers dwindle. This has a knock on effect on predator species like foxes, pine martens, weasels, owls, buzzards etc and so their numbers dwindle. In the end there isn't even enough food for the red deer, and so a proportion of them starve. All that's left is a barren landscape with the strongest deer struggling on.

Ideally, red deer populations would be controlled by natural predators, but we hunted Scottish wolves to extinction.

I think the best solution in this situation is to cull red deer numbers for the safety and preservation of a range of species, and to save the deer from starvation. Responsible culling means mimicking nature as far as possible, so killing the oldest and weakest members of a herd. In this case the survival of many species is more important than the life of an individual deer.

But these aren't easy choices - it takes care and knowledge of a specific situation.

And the above example is, again, very different from an entire industry dedicated to raising animals (at huge environmental cost) for slaughter.

@MargoLovebutter because if you love something you aren't happy to accept it suffering on your behalf! It's that simple!

What about killing mice or rats to protect a horse's health?

Or killing mosquitoes?

@Scrowy fine - but you surely accept that your farm isn't the same as every other farm in the world?! Maybe your cows aren't eating grain (by which I mean cereal crops in the broadest sense), but the vast majority across the world do eat grain and the environmental impact is devastating.

@Lweji my family have had horses for years and we have never needed to control rat and mice populations because we store any feed we use in airtight containers and sweep up regularly. I can't imagine what volume of rats and mice you would be dealing with that it could harm a horse, and if you have that many it's maybe a sign that your stable management should be better! I see the odd mouse but only rarely.

Mosquitoes is a bizarre example and I think you're really scraping the barrel if you think a barely-sentient insect is somehow equivalent to a cow. But for what it's worth, to save people from malaria and dengue fever and who knows what else mosquitoes carry I have no problem with them being killed.

Gah, but that is where your argument doesn't work!!!!!! The only inconvenience rats & mice cause in urban areas is to humans - so why is it ok for pest control to take place there & that still sit comfortably with animal lovers.

Meat is a natural part of the human diet. I believe that there are some essential amino acids that humans can only get from meat - or take artificial supplements, so mean is not just natural it is also good for us.

I am not suggesting we overeat meat and I am a huge advocate of sustainable and respectful farming. In the same way I am a huge advocate of reducing plastics, pollutants and having foods travel ridiculously long distances etc.

What I disagree with is your original statement that you can't love animals and be a meat eater.

Plants want to live. You can tell this because they have evolved all sorts of protection against predators. They can even communicate with each other to warn of predators in the area www.livescience.com/1909-plants-communicate-warn-danger.html. Therefore is it wrong to kill and eat them?

Did you know that 84.34 per cent of left handers have a 20 per cent chance higher to win the lottery????

I am really sorry but those that sprout fact's without providing scholarly peer reviewed articles on the matter, dont hold much weigh to me.

In terms of your argument, it's isn't really a black and white question is it? It's a statement was created to invoke a defensive response from people, the intention being 'you cant possible have empathy or emotions toward any animals unless your are a vegetarian or vegan'. I think if there was cruelty free, animal free and environmental sound product that was of similar taste of a cost point that was comparative, people would jump at the chance.

This isn't the world we live in. I think there are ways in which people can reduce their meat intake but to imply that you cant love animals without vegetarian is incorrect and harmful.

@MargoLovebutter it astounds me that you can't see the difference between controlling naturally occurring rats and mice because there is an infestation which might cause terrible consequences like disease and RAISING AN ANIMAL FOR SLAUGHTER BECAUSE YOU LIKE BURGERS

In the first example, you are undertaking a necessary evil to prevent significant harm from occurring. In the second you are happily condoning cruelty and slaughter to suit your taste preferences.

There is nothing necessary about eating meat. It isn't unfortunate harm that has to be carried out because the consequences of not doing so are much worse. It's simply putting your preference for the taste of meat over the life of an animal.

Mosquitoes isn't scraping the barrel. They are animals.
The males don't even feed on blood.

And where do you draw the line of being sentient? You complained about only loving some animals, but here you are only loving a few.

Why can't I draw the line at dogs and cats, for example?

@MargoLovebutter it astounds me that you can't see the difference between controlling naturally occurring rats and mice because there is an infestation which might cause terrible consequences like disease

But overpopulation of humans can also cause disease...

@Rainydaydog plants aren't sentient which is, for me, the crucial difference.

@Lweji I've been clear throughout that I think there are times when it's acceptable to kill animals to avoid greater harm - mosquitoes were an example of that.

You're perfectly welcome to draw the line at cats and dogs, but you can't draw the line and then profess yourself an animal lover. If your line inflicts pain and suffering on the majority of animals for the sake of your tastes, you're not an animal lover.

How do you define sentient?

How much does an animal need to be sentient for you to care?