How do farmers reconcile themselves to the volumes of animals they send to slaughter over the course of their lifetimes?

[Empanadas]

Hi, this is something I’ve always wondered. However, I was watching that Netflix series about Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall and there was a farmer showing a whole barn of cattle he has obviously reared from birth, but quite blithely saying, “oh they'll all be off next week.”

AIBU to think being a cattle / sheep / chicken farmer takes a certain type of person and to wonder how they deal with their conscience in this depressing business?

[quote 21Flora]@nanbread an estimated 7 billion wild animals die per year as a result of arable agriculture. Yes, it’s less than those that are eaten but it’s still a significant number.

For those lauding organic agriculture - animals (chickens, beef, sheep and fish) are critical to producing it. You entirely lack understanding if you don’t know this. Without animals in organic agriculture prices would be significantly higher than they already are.[/quote]
Well 7 billion is a LOT less than the estimations I was able to find for how many die to be eaten. And given that meat shouldn't really be making up the bulk of most people's diet, that doesn't really support the theory that arable agriculture is as bad or worse.

And given that meat shouldn't really be making up the bulk of most people's diet, that doesn't really support the theory that arable agriculture is as bad or worse.

It's almost like it's a system with huge amounts of variation and trying to break it into to incredibly broad categories with one 'good' and one 'bad' is difficult and counterproductive.

That's my take anyway. The impact on animals of farming systems is massively variable within the animal products/non-animals products categories. For my own personal ethics, I prefer to look at the systems and products within those two broad categories and balance my impact across them as much as I can, rather than ruling out one totally and championing the other.

I fundamentally don’t agree that animals are human commodities, full stop.
Yes, that's my stance too. We don't "own" animals to do with as we like, imo. Whether that's breeding them specifically for consumption or posing with drugged tigers, or racing them to their deaths.

However, I understand that this is a belief, and that others hold a different belief. I know that for many years I was vegetarian and kind of "blocked out" the little I knew of the egg and dairy industry. Then it came to a point where I just couldn't ignore it any more, and at that point you either accept that this happens and participate in it, or you reject it and opt out of participating in it.

I don't think meat eaters are evil - I think most of them are where I was with vegetarianism: either blocking out the bad bits, or accepting the bad bits and carrying on. So asking how farmers can reconcile themselves to the slaughter is kind of the wrong question - they are already fully aware of the messy side of livestock farming and have already accepted it. I doubt there's a farmer out there who suddenly thinks, "OMG this is horrible I should stop" - even if it's what you and I (OP) would think in the same situation.

@JassyRadlett

And given that meat shouldn't really be making up the bulk of most people's diet, that doesn't really support the theory that arable agriculture is as bad or worse.

It's almost like it's a system with huge amounts of variation and trying to break it into to incredibly broad categories with one 'good' and one 'bad' is difficult and counterproductive.

That's my take anyway. The impact on animals of farming systems is massively variable within the animal products/non-animals products categories. For my own personal ethics, I prefer to look at the systems and products within those two broad categories and balance my impact across them as much as I can, rather than ruling out one totally and championing the other.

I agree, and have great respect for your approach! But that binary is exactly what I always find so questionable on these threads. There's always such a strong theme of people arguing that we shouldn't condemn slaughter practices because agriculture is worse. I don't think the evidence supports that and I don't think it has to be one or the other, either.

There's always such a strong theme of people arguing that we shouldn't condemn slaughter practices because agriculture is worse. I don't think the evidence supports that and I don't think it has to be one or the other, either.

It's so polarising! And so people go to extremes on it.

It's like Brexit (bloody hate it overall but there are actually upsides for how we can shift agricultural subsidies away from production and towards payment for welfare and environmental restoration). I got howled down in the Brexit debates on that one for suggesting that there was any possibility of any benefit whatsoever.

Has anyone seen any of Jeremy Clarkson's new documentary on farming on Amazon? Its Clarkson being an idiot as usual and a lot of the scenes seem somewhat set up. (Its new out this week)

But its a good candid incite to farming particularly to people who don't know much about it and wouldn't be interested but for Clarkson. He raises some interesting questions and highlights some of the very real issues in the industry.

We have a farm locally which has been trying to push new ways of agricultural farming. They started about 7 years ago and were thought of as nuts but they are doing brilliantly. Basically the premise is to farm lots of different crops rather than the monocultures we are used to and to do it in a way which is more environmentally friendly (so less packaging, food miles etc etc).

He's finally starting to attract the interest of other farmers as he's being so successful and getting amazingly good results despite 'breaking the rules'. His argument has been that we have forgotten a lot of the good practices that our ancestors used which we should be using (stuff like companion planting and leaving 'weeds' because they actually help crops by attracting pollenators and reducing pests naturally or being the target for pests) and it protects him financially because he's less exposed if he has one crop failure. Its also getting a certain amount of media attention and he is starting to work with local agricultural colleges to pass on his expertise and knowledge.

My point is that farming isn't necessarily bad for the environment if its managed well and more thought given to it. And livestock farming also could be done in ways which improve quality and productivity but are less harmful.

I think we should all try and reduce meat consumption but not necessarily eliminate it. Likewise where possible i think we should also try and do things like move away from shitty lawns and grow more ourselves - and do simple things like reinvent roadside grass verges etc.

My point is the extremism isnt helpful. There are much better more pragmatic solutions.

Derxa I think oatly have stopped sending their oat waste to pig farms after a backlash from animal rights groups. They are sending some as compost to different farms and working on projects to find a use for the rest.

Has anyone seen any of Jeremy Clarkson's new documentary on farming on Amazon? Its Clarkson being an idiot as usual and a lot of the scenes seem somewhat set up. (Its new out this week) Binge watched it and loved it

He's finally starting to attract the interest of other farmers as he's being so successful and getting amazingly good results despite 'breaking the rules'. His argument has been that we have forgotten a lot of the good practices that our ancestors used which we should be using (stuff like companion planting and leaving 'weeds' because they actually help crops by attracting pollenators and reducing pests naturally or being the target for pests) and it protects him financially because he's less exposed if he has one crop failure.

This is going to sound ridiculous, but this reminds me a bit of reading Enid Blyton's Cherry Tree and Willow Farm books when I was a kid, and the Six Cousins books - anything she set on farms, really. I was always fascinated by how different the farms felt to the ones I was used to in Australia. I remember so vividly the idea of 'mixed farming' being economically safer in the long term (if one crop fails or the bottom falls out of one market, that's not everything gone for the year) as well as other parts of the description.

I agree that's where we need to get back to, by addressing consumption and providing incentives for this sort of farming as well as growing the markets for them. I'm hoping that's the sort of way the new subsidy system will be heading but it's got such a huge mountain to climb against the might of industrial farming.

No we do NOT own animals. The fact any animal exists, as a species, means it has as much right to exist as any human.

NO animal is a commodity.

We should never assume the right to “play god” with the lives of animals. As humans, we have the gift of choice. We could use it wisely, but we are abusing it and we should be ashamed at the way we live.

If you find yourself agreeing with Jeremy clarkson of all people then surely you’ve got to rethink?!

@Newgirls

If you find yourself agreeing with Jeremy clarkson of all people then surely you’ve got to rethink?!

Did you watch the series?

No not with him as a presenter. Violent bully. Very happy to watch James Reebank and other more genuine farmers though.

I agreed strongly with Clarkson on Brexit. It is perfectly possible to agree with some opinions that someone holds and not others.

This very polarized thinking that everyone and everything is either good or bad is a real issue currently.

I will definitely watch it derxa.

If you’ve watched Clarkson’s farm I do the same job as Charles.

Farming practices are changing very quickly. Soil in this doesn’t have much left to give. Most of my peers (all in our 20s) farm in a much more sustainable way than their parent. We all have degrees in agriculture and land management. Minimum tillage, companion planting, using cattle to graze leys as break crops and conservation grazing is becoming increasingly normal. I’d guess that by the time my generation takes on their family farms things will look very different.

I just think it’s important on threads like these that the realities of farming are presented. Everybody relies on animal agriculture to eat in this country, even if you aren’t eating meat.

If you find yourself agreeing with Jeremy clarkson of all people then surely you’ve got to rethink?!

You know that binary, black and white, its either pure good or pure bad thought process we were talking about upthread?

I disagree with Clarkson on a lot of things. I've met him a few times, I've spoken to him on the phone more times than that. I don't like him. I think he's really unpleasant.

It doesn't, however, mean that anything he says is wrong and I must disagree with it on principle. He's written some things I've agreed with or that have caused me to think again about my own opinion. He's written more than I've disagreed with or thought was either contemptible or bonkers, but it doesn't make every point of view he holds automatically invalid.

Because life, and people, are a fuckload more complex than than that.

Goteky - is there any possibility you could try and hold a semi-respectful debate? Everybody else seems to manage without resorting to personal insults and a snarky, aggressive tone. It’s tiring.

Humans think they own animals because we run the world with our own selfish interests first and foremost. Putting a price in an animal is a human construct. Some people used to put a price on slaves and believe that was the “natural order.” The fact is, different species exist as a result of evolution - they do not exist for the purposes of humans. We do not own animals. We are disabusing our place on the planet, simply because we can.

@JassyRadlett

If you find yourself agreeing with Jeremy clarkson of all people then surely you’ve got to rethink?!

You know that binary, black and white, its either pure good or pure bad thought process we were talking about upthread?

I disagree with Clarkson on a lot of things. I've met him a few times, I've spoken to him on the phone more times than that. I don't like him. I think he's really unpleasant.

It doesn't, however, mean that anything he says is wrong and I must disagree with it on principle. He's written some things I've agreed with or that have caused me to think again about my own opinion. He's written more than I've disagreed with or thought was either contemptible or bonkers, but it doesn't make every point of view he holds automatically invalid.

Because life, and people, are a fuckload more complex than than that.

There are so many people better qualified than him to talk on this - some of the young farmers on here. Gammony click bait presenter sorry!

*Grow up. We DO own animals. That is how it works. My cat is my property, legally and practically. The farmer owns the cows and the sheep, they are property.

You are confusing your ideals with reality. You don't like that animals are property, but that doesn't change the fact that they are.

And your opinions are just that, your opinions. Maybe stop lecturing everyone else for 5 minutes?*

Is there any need for the grow up? I think it's an interesting philosophical point about ownership. Laws are just pieces of paper, they only have any meaning because we as a society say they do and choose to respect their weight. We could write a law saying we own the Earth or the Sun and it wouldn't make it true. Yes, we as humans say we own animals, and we physically have the might to enforce that ownership. But there is a deeper point to be made about what our human laws actually "mean", it would certainly be a lot less if we came up across something we wanted to own that could fight back.

And then of course there's the more obvious argument that just because we DO consider ourselves to own them, doesn't mean we should.

*abusing, not sure where the “dis” came from!

You can say tbis about anybody who eats meat (most of us).

There are so many people better qualified than him to talk on this - some of the young farmers on here.

I don't disagree with that, and if you'd posted that I'd probably have agreed with you - although there is an argument that Clarkson takes these sorts of issues to a different audience than other presenters are able to reach.

I am just so everlastingly tired of the 'if X says something, it must automatically be wrong' nonsense.