To wonder if you know that the meat you buy could have been raised in a factory farm...

[MsWonderful]

And that the animals could also have been subjected to horrific cruelty even if the farm is Red Tractor approved?
www.daventry.radio/daventry-farm-suspended-from-red-tractor-scheme-amid-animal-welfare-concerns/

@MoiraRosesTransAtlanticDrawl

Scrowy. Please feel free to defend this industry. Your choice. But it's never the animals choice.

You have spoken to every farm animal then? Gathered their views? Done a qualitative and quantitive survey?

2 baas for I'm happy, 3 baas for I'm being mistreated and 4 baas and a cough for I'm reasonably ok but would prefer the batemans ewenique sheep rolls over the speedilamb nuts for breakfast tomorrow?

@MsQueenInTheNorth

Not in the slightest.

How terrifying.

My fault for asking, I suppose.

I've been getting my meat from local butchers for some years now. I always tried to avoid pre-prepared food anyway so the issue with untraceable chicken sandwiches doesn't really apply to me.

I do my bit, I can't do more than that.

@DdraigGoch no, if you choose to eat meat you can’t do much than that.

If I’m brutally honest then I’d say that (in my own personal/moral opinion) you can do more than that by not eating meat at all, but if you do choose to eat meat (which lots of people who I love dearly choose to do) then making sure it’s local and free range is pretty much the best you can do.

Lots of my meat eating friend will happily eat meat in restaurants (without checking where it’s from) and buy pre packaged sandwiches and salads, so you’re doing a lot better than them

As a vegetarian for over half my life I've never understood the way some people try and defend their meat consumption when it's enabled by the meat being cheap, from abused animals.

Abuse and mistreatment of animals is uncivilised and morally abhorrent. This is the truth, simply put.

Cheap meat that is able only to be produced and sold by animals being reared in awful standards should not in my opinion be available and or an option.

Humans are the highest of the food chain as a pp said, but we've out evolved everything else by such a degree and in so many ways that it's our responsibility to treat every living thing with as much respect as we can. We don't need to eat animals at all. So really we shouldn't, and if we do it should be in the most humane way possible.

Pps that say it's because of a low income I respect that, if meat was necessary I'd be backing you but it's not, and not eating it won't take anything away from you.

There are so many delicious things you can eat that don't contain meat.

If I met someone irl and they told me that they couldn't care less about animals and would just buy the cheapest meat they could get I'd judge them very harshly for it.

And for everyone that's not having anything pointed out in this thread and thinks that vegetarians and vegans always try and shove their opinions down your throat, that's really not true, I personally try and avoid this subject but if someone else brings it up or keeps asking me why I'm a vegetarian I will tell them my opinions on the matter.

Abuse is never okay and it should be called out. Animals are not exempt from this.

Scrowy, would you happily change places with an animal on a kill line then? I don't need to hear a sheep cry out to know that a knife slitting her throat would feel the same as a knife on my throat. Are you arguing that animals do not suffer? That the meat industry is exactly how it is portrayed on adverts? The reality is very different for millions of animals. It is an industry that is indefensible. Unless you have no compassion,don't give a fuck or profit from them.

@MoiraRosesTransAtlanticDrawl

Scrowy, would you happily change places with an animal on a kill line then? I don't need to hear a sheep cry out to know that a knife slitting her throat would feel the same as a knife on my throat. Are you arguing that animals do not suffer? That the meat industry is exactly how it is portrayed on adverts? The reality is very different for millions of animals. It is an industry that is indefensible. Unless you have no compassion,don't give a fuck or profit from them.

When animals are prestunned, they can't feel it. So it would be more like being under anaesthesia for an operation, just without the waking up bit at the end.

Or, probably more appropriately, like my brother.

He sustained a catastrophic brain injury. He had no reaction to water dripped in his ear, no reaction to light, no reaction to his eye being touched, no reaction to his ventilator being disconnected. He could feel nothing, comprehend nothing, think nothing.

He wouldn't have been anaesthetised for organ retrieval because of feeling pain, if he was anaesthetised, it would have been in case of involuntary movements/muscle contractions affecting the delicate surgery they were undertaking. He wouldn't have felt his corneas, his heart, his pancreas, his lungs, kidneys and liver being removed. Because his brain was, as a result of the injury, pretty much mush.

I'm sad, I miss him. But I'm not bothered by the fact his body was cut open, his ribs opened and his organs removed whilst his heart was still beating because he didn't know a thing about it.

I don't think its morally right to kill 2.7 trillion animals a year. Nobody would raise their hand when asked if they agree with animal abuse, yet their actions do not align with this. We do not need to keep breeding them and we do not need to keep killing them.

As a vegetarian for over half my life I've never understood the way some people try and defend their meat consumption when it's enabled by the meat being cheap, from abused animals.

I have never understoood why some people, vegetaruan, vegan, meat eating, airatarians, whatever, refuse to see the beam...

They see that meat production has issues yet don't ever acknowledge those of the arable industry. I'm not the only one to post this here and yet... tumbleweed.

Global warming, loss of habitat, loss of local crops, air miles, orang utan...

They see that meat production has issues yet don't ever acknowledge those of the arable industry

Because it takes up less acres per calorie these problems will always be less than meat or dairy farming.

They see that meat production has issues yet don't ever acknowledge those of the arable industry. I'm not the only one to post this here and yet... tumbleweed.

Global warming, loss of habitat, loss of local crops, air miles, orang utan...

The issue for me is that concerns about arable farming are often no more than whataboutery. Countless times I’ve seen people on these threads defend eating meat by saying ‘what about the problems with crop farming?’ - they don’t actually care about crop farming, they just want to deflect from the issue of meat consumption.

The reality is that animal agriculture takes up a disproportionate amount of land / resources in comparison to the calories it produces. If we weren’t growing feed for animals and using land for grazing, we could produce far more calories per acre than we currently do.

Consider soya - one of the most environmentally problematic crops, and one which people love to bring up as a ‘gotcha!’ for vegans and vegetarians. But 70% of the world’s soya crop is fed to animals.

As for air miles, you might be surprised at just how little these impact on the overall carbon footprint of a food product - ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

I’m very conscious about the impact of the plants I eat. I have a chart on my fridge showing when various fruits and veggies are in season and I stick closely to it. I only buy organic, and a lot of what I buy comes from an organic stall at my local farmer’s market, or the farm shop a couple of miles from my house. I know I am in a very privileged position to be able to do this; I’m only mentioning it to show that I do care a lot about the impact of crop farming.

But I’m sceptical of meat eaters who express concern about the environmental harm of arable crops when they won’t give up meat, which has a vastly more significant impact. It’s hard to see it as anything other than an attempt to divert attention away from a habit they don’t want to give up. I’m not saying that’s true of you at all - just that it might explain why there is sometimes an apparent reluctance to engage with people who think meat eating is defensible but appear to have strong moral objections to arable farming.

Great post happy

No I didn't realise - I'd assumed red tractor labelled meats would mean the animals were in a field.

So do I need to look for free range meat, or organic meat? Is either OK? Is some meat labelled free range...never noticed it?

Jacob look for grass-fed, free-range, similar labels like that.

Red Tractor standards are here: redtractor.org.uk/who-we-are/standards/

Red Tractor standards will cover a wide spectrum of enterprises.

It's terrible for any animal to suffer. All animals reared for meat should be looked after properly and killed humanely. I for one agree with you OP x

Scrowy you are coming across as pretty simple actually.
Going to great pains to highlight how no animals don't go in a slaughterhouse alive and come out shredded into bits- open wounds, warts and all (I've been on a pig farm- you literally are getting everything- how delicious) wrapped in plastic. We all know that doesn't happen- the point she was making is that animals are lead against their will into a torture chamber, murdered and then come out dead to be used for meat.

You are quite oblivious and really have never paused to think about the meat you're eating have you? That it was a result of fear, misery, torture, anguish, pain, death. You are sick enough to actually question if any 1 animal would ever agree to this and willingly go through this nightmare ordeal resulting in their murder, just so you can stuff their flesh down your gob, have it sit in your gut only to come out your backside a few days later....
Sounds great! Where can we all sign up??

Lots of people don't like the thought of animals dying for food, so they don't eat dead animals, great.

Lots of other people do want to eat meat, but want to be sure that the meat they are eating is produced under the best circumstances, and that the animal slaughter is humane, so they use consumer pressure and buy responsibly - great.

Hyperbolic tirades like the one from molly don't really help IMO - they mostly serve to piss off the people who are responsible meat consumers, and are largely ignored by to the people who don't care less.

Saying that vegans and vegetarians ignore the issues with arable farming does not stack up.

Humans do need to eat food. We cannot feed the human population without farming. But it takes far more arable land to feed the animals that are then eaten by humans, than it would take to feed the humans directly with the produce of the arable land. Which is not to say that there aren't issues, or that they shouldn't be addressed. But to say that this is an issue for vegans and vegetarians to address and that if they don't then their objections to the meat industry are invalid makes no sense at all and denies the meat industries reliance on plant crops to produce the end product.

This is an interesting article about land use vs calories obtained from it. Seems to be based on solid referenced research. The diagram below is based on the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
I have zoomed in on the smaller detail in pic 2. Link to article ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets

But to say that this is an issue for vegans and vegetarians to address and that if they don't then their objections to the meat industry are invalid makes no sense at all and denies the meat industries reliance on plant crops to produce the end product.

Totally agree with this. If anyone is concerned about the impact of crop farming, the very first thing they should be doing is looking at their meat consumption.

There are a lot of comments on this thread about meat-eaters being 'defensive'.

Well, no bloody wonder.
If you are criticised for a choice you have made about your own personal ethics, you tend to get defensive.
If someone comes preaching at you and throwing emotive language around, you are likely to get defensive.
If someone criticises your livelihood, especially if you have thought it through in the light of your own moral code, you are likely to get defensive.
If you are criticised for choices about something, by someone who in your view doesn't know enough to comment, you'll tell them to back off, and be accused of getting defensive.
If you are criticised by people using statistics or factoids you consider dodgy (US info being applied to the UK, claims that pasture can all be turned to arable) you are likely to get defensive.

And I get genuinely pissy with people who refuse to tackle the uncomfortable fact that, for people to eat, other animals have to die. They sit there, with their cupboards full of bread, fruit and vegetables, for which untold numbers of insects, rodents rabbits, deer and pigeons were killed, and preach at those of us who think it's fine to rear an animal in a high-welfare system, stun it into insensibility, kill it and eat it.

Seriously, if people with shotguns and dogs didn't go and sit in hides and take out woodies, and blokes (mostly) with rifles didn't keep deer numbers down, we'd have fuck all left to harvest. And our woodlands would be destroyed as well, but don't let that bother you.

I see the ethical and environmental issues of livestock farming quite separately.
People disagreeing with the idea of rearing and killing animals to feed humans, that's fine, an individual ethical position, and one I have more sympathy with than the other end of the spectrum i.e that animal welfare is irrelevant in meat production.
But the environmental arguments around livestock farming are much more complicated, and there is no simple answer. Livestock are an essential component of soil health and the carbon cycle, cultivating permanent grassland for producing plants for humans will have a huge environmental impact, and painting a broad brush global picture does not help the argument at all.

I mean for example, neonicotinoids and glyphosate are used largely by the arable & horticultural sectors, as are fungicides. They have a huge environmental impact. As do GM crops.
If we're to feed the world on a meat free diet, we will see a LOT more of that, and more damage to our soil biome.

And I get genuinely pissy with people who refuse to tackle the uncomfortable fact that, for people to eat, other animals have to die. They sit there, with their cupboards full of bread, fruit and vegetables, for which untold numbers of insects, rodents rabbits, deer and pigeons were killed, and preach at those of us who think it's fine to rear an animal in a high-welfare system, stun it into insensibility, kill it and eat it.

But you’re responsible for those things too. So as well as all the deer, insects, rabbits, birds etc that die because of crop cultivation, you’re also responsible for the deer, insects, rabbits, birds etc killed in the production of crops fed to farm animals, AND your share of the trillions of animals bred and killed for food.

But you're responsible for those things too
Most cattle and sheep in the UK are farmed extensively - on pasture. Cattle over-wintered indoors are principally fed on silage, much of which is grown on land that is great for producing grass but not so good for producing crops. Much of the supplementary food they eat is produced from the wastes of human food production - for example, soya residues left after the oil has been extracted. Some of it (lucerne, stubble turnips) is grown on arable soils to give them a break from cereals - lucerne is a nitrogen fixer, for example. Cows and sheep have this amazing capacity to turn stuff we can't eat (grass, maize stalks etc) into high-quality protein. And yes, some crops are grown for them on arable land (this is very true of chickens, though I suspect - I don't actually know - that a lot of what they are fed isn't fit for human consumption). But in terms of beef and cattle in the UK, grass and food wastes are the major part of their diet.

This what I mean about getting 'defensive' with people who don't know enough to comment.

And I own it. I know animals die so I can eat. I don't sit there spouting about my diet being 'cruelty-free' as a lot of vegans do. It's my ethical choice to accept that if animals will die in any case, it's not a problem to raise some in decent welfare conditions and kill them cleanly.

And I get 'defensive' when people who know bugger all about agriculture, specifically agriculture in the UK, and don't understand about controlling the numbers of wild animals in the absence of apex predators, criticise my reasonable choices and try to evangelise me with the gospel of St. Vegan.

Most cattle and sheep in the UK are farmed extensively - on pasture. Cattle over-wintered indoors are principally fed on silage, much of which is grown on land that is great for producing grass but not so good for producing crops. Much of the supplementary food they eat is produced from the wastes of human food production - for example, soya residues left after the oil has been extracted. Some of it (lucerne, stubble turnips) is grown on arable soils to give them a break from cereals - lucerne is a nitrogen fixer, for example. Cows and sheep have this amazing capacity to turn stuff we can't eat (grass, maize stalks etc) into high-quality protein. And yes, some crops are grown for them on arable land (this is very true of chickens, though I suspect - I don't actually know - that a lot of what they are fed isn't fit for human consumption). But in terms of beef and cattle in the UK, grass and food wastes are the major part of their diet. Well said but it will fall on deaf ears.