Frank interview

White Clover

auspicious wrote: »

Veganism is the opposite of extreme.
Is it more extreme to chop down a plant? Or is it more extreme to purposefully chop off an animal's head?

3 minute clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA55lVeY22Y

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OA55lVeY22Y

Are you trying to say that is the way animals are slaughtered in this country? Have you seen this done?

Unearthly

White Clover wrote: »

This is odd. You're agreeing with this dietician "expert" who is promoting animal welfare, while vegans are against animal welfare.
Which is it? Both positions couldn't be further apart. Just another example of the flakiness of your ideals. Hitching on to any passing bandwagon no matter how contradictory it is!

Veganism against animal welfare?

Explain

White Clover

White Clover wrote: »

Are you trying to say that is the way animals are slaughtered in this country? Have you seen this done?

Seen what done ? You’d be well pressed to see anything that involves the slaughtering of animals. They keep that well hidden and well protected. They know what the fallout of that would be. The overnight death of an industry. Overnight.

If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegan or vegetarian.

auspicious

White Clover wrote: »

This is odd. You're agreeing with this dietician "expert" who is promoting animal welfare, while vegans are against animal welfare.
Which is it? Both positions couldn't be further apart. Just another example of the flakiness of your ideals. Hitching on to any passing bandwagon no matter how contradictory it is!

It's more odd that you haven't understood the concepts advocated here on the forum.
Animal exploitation and abuse of their rights, or lack thereof, is not conducive to their welfare. You're mixing welfare practices with welfare.

gozunda

auspicious wrote: »

It's more odd that you haven't understood the concepts advocated here on the forum.
Animal exploitation and abuse of their rights, or lack thereof, is not conducive to their welfare. You're mixing welfare practices with welfare.

I'd strongly disagree. The poster is not mixing anything up. In Ireland Animal welfare is enshrined in law and safeguards the health and welfare of all animals whether farmed, wild or domestic.

This from a previous comment here

Vegans don't want animals farmed, so only abolition of this practice is compatible with that.

This type of abolitionism approach does not support animal welfare at all

Abolitionists maintain that ...we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation, and that abolitionists should not support welfare reform campaigns

And imo that's completely wrong. Looking after animals properly is absolutely conductive to their welfare. Its not only a legal requirement but also the right thing to do imo I'm sorry you don't seem to agree with that.

Interestingingly abolitionism also seeks to end the keeping of animals as pets / companion animals for any reason.

auspicious

Looking after animals properly = not exploiting them; not abusing their being; not hurting them; not bolt gunning them in the head; putting their welfare before personal gain and pleasure.

gozunda

auspicious wrote: »

Looking after animals properly = not exploiting them; not abusing their being; not hurting them; not bolt gunning them in the head; putting their welfare before personal gain and pleasure.

Thats the thing I dont know anyone who in keeping an animal in farming or keeping a pet. exploits them to deliberately harm them or indeed puts any aspect of animal welfare before 'personal gain or pleasure". As for 'bolt guns' - afaik their use is highly regulated and in my experience never used by members of the general public.

If you are aware of someone breaking the law or deliberatly harming an animal then the best thing to do - is to report it.

auspicious

Oh my good god!! LOL. Animal agriculture does exploit animals to deliberately harm them. That's the definition of it. They are all killed. That's harming!
You can put them on a soft silk cushion for the duration of their deliberately imposed short lifespans but their head will still eventually be separated from their neck.
Duh.

gozunda

auspicious wrote: »

Oh my good god!! LOL. Animal agriculture does exploit animals to deliberately harm them. That's the definition of it. They are all killed. That's harming!You can put them on a soft silk cushion for the duration of their deliberately imposed short lifespans but their head will still eventually be separated from their neck.
Duh.

No again I'd disagree with that. Deliberatly harming is the act of inflicting gratuitous ill treatment. Slaughter and animal euthanisea is not undertaken for the purpose of ill treatment. Even the killing of any animal - whether farmed or domestic is highly regulated and must by law minimise any suffering. And btw i can accept you dont want animals to be farmed. And thats ok.

However domestic animals are fed, protected from predators and receive medical care as necessary to prevent harm and suffering. That's just one of the reasons why we have animal welfare laws and practice.

Bigbooty

Actually Irish law, and welfare laws prohibits unnecessary suffering which ultimately provides a legal framework for necessary suffering. If you take Mink farming for example, which is being abolished in this country as we speak. Legally speaking you are allowed to keep them in tiny crates, side by side. We know that minks are highly territorial, solitary animals that kill each other to defend their territory which is over a rather large area. Yet legally we can keep thousands of them in confinement. Their existence is absolute torture and farming them is completely cruel but it is/was allowed under Irish law.

White Clover

Unearthly wrote: »

Veganism against animal welfare?

Explain

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057882447/1/#post107273035

Few posts down there, quote by the poster "jive"

So, which is it?

White Clover

auspicious wrote: »

It's more odd that you haven't understood the concepts advocated here on the forum.
Animal exploitation and abuse of their rights, or lack thereof, is not conducive to their welfare. You're mixing welfare practices with welfare.

I respectfully believe that you haven't a clue about the behaviour expressed by livestock to indicate contentment, comfort and happiness. This only happens when their welfare is a priority, as it is on 99.99% of farms.
And you know what, that's ok. There is a growing number of people in this country who are a few generations gone from the land and livestock, they are totally disconnected from the important role that animal farming and grazing plays in protecting our environment.

Bigbooty

White Clover wrote: »

I respectfully believe that you haven't a clue about the behaviour expressed by livestock to indicate contentment, comfort and happiness. This only happens when their welfare is a priority, as it is on 99.99% of farms.

About 85% of pig farms are classed as intensive. 50% of poultry production is intensive. Even so called free range poultry production can have up to 10,000 birds in a barn. When a bird lives for six weeks welfare is not a priority. When a sow is kept in farrowing crate giving birth to 14+ piglets at a time which will be killed within 5 months, welfare is not a priority. Basic compliance with the law is.

White Clover

Bigbooty wrote: »

About 85% of pig farms are classed as intensive. 50% of poultry production is intensive. Even so called free range poultry production can have up to 10,000 birds in a barn. When a bird lives for six weeks welfare is not a priority. When a sow is kept in farrowing crate giving birth to 14+ piglets at a time which will be killed within 5 months, welfare is not a priority. Basic compliance with the law is.

Care to guess how many piglets would get to live to 5 months(you say) if the sow was farrowing outside? Ensuring every animal gets a chance to live is a priority, allowing anything else to happen is just negligence.

Bigbooty

White Clover wrote: »

Care to guess how many piglets would get to live to 5 months(you say) if the sow was farrowing outside? Ensuring every animal gets a chance to live is a priority, allowing anything else to happen is just negligence.

To reduce product loss. Maintaining profit is the priority not welfare.

White Clover

Bigbooty wrote: »

To reduce product loss. Maintaining profit is the priority not welfare.

Go back and read my post again, it's only a few lines. Don't be trying to twist it to suit a flawed agenda.
As I said in a previous post, if you're so far removed from animal farming, you simply will not understand.

When my sheep are lambing, they are watched 24 hours every day. If I thought one of them was in distress while giving birth, I wouldn't be able to sleep.

You will come back and make some low, cheap comment about profit, simply because you don't understand.

Unearthly

White Clover wrote: »

Go back and read my post again, it's only a few lines. Don't be trying to twist it to suit a flawed agenda.
As I said in a previous post, if you're so far removed from animal farming, you simply will not understand.

When my sheep are lambing, they are watched 24 hours every day. If I thought one of them was in distress while giving birth, I wouldn't be able to sleep.

You will come back and make some low, cheap comment about profit, simply because you don't understand.

Well obviously we are not going to understand as it's a horrible industry to us. You can't sleep if you feel your sheep are in distress but then send them all to slaughter anyway

Yeah i don't and will never understand the ethics in that tbh

White Clover

Unearthly wrote: »

Well obviously we are not going to understand as it's a horrible industry to us. You can't sleep if you feel your sheep are in distress but then send them all to slaughter anyway

Yeah i don't and will never understand the ethics in that tbh

Read the post again, you missed a bit!
It has been explained here ad nauseum that animals are stunned before slaughter.
If you were stunned, would you feel distress?
It's a yes or no answer, so no diversions please.

Also, you never responded to my post further up!
You were quick out of the traps today , so, which is it?

Bigbooty

White Clover wrote: »

Go back and read my post again, it's only a few lines. Don't be trying to twist it to suit a flawed agenda.
As I said in a previous post, if you're so far removed from animal farming, you simply will not understand.

When my sheep are lambing, they are watched 24 hours every day. If I thought one of them was in distress while giving birth, I wouldn't be able to sleep.

You will come back and make some low, cheap comment about profit, simply because you don't understand.

I specifically focused on poultry and pig farming because that's where welfare is the lowest priority and intensive farming is most prevalent.

I'm sure you care deeply about your animals. I don't dispute that and I don't see how that's relevant to what I said. The views that I have expressed in relation to poultry and pig farming are also that of people who want to farm animals more ethically. I may disagree with them in principle but it doesn't mean that I can't support their initiatives to reduce suffering.

Intensive farming leads to reduced welfare. This is a fact. The head of the IFA said as much when talking about the intensification of dairy farming leading to increased culling of unwanted male dairy calves.

Unearthly

White Clover wrote: »

Read the post again, you missed a bit!
It has been explained here ad nauseum that animals are stunned before slaughter.
If you were stunned, would you feel distress?
It's a yes or no answer, so no diversions please.

Also, you never responded to my post further up!
You were quick out of the traps today , so, which is it?

Again stunning something is unbelievably unethical imo as well. I've had 2 dogs in my lifetime with family. Loved them both. Stunning either of them would be evil in my eyes.

And your post was dreadful. You quoted a post from 2 years ago and took it out of context. Jive like me is against killing animals.

Another ****fest.

And that’s ‘****’.

Not ‘****’.

White Clover

Bigbooty wrote: »

I specifically focused on poultry and pig farming because that's where welfare is the lowest priority and intensive farming is most prevalent.

I'm sure you care deeply about your animals. I don't dispute that and I don't see how that's relevant to what I said. The views that I have expressed in relation to poultry and pig farming are also that of people who want to farm animals more ethically. I may disagree with them in principle but it doesn't mean that I can't support their initiatives to reduce suffering.

Intensive farming leads to reduced welfare. This is a fact. The head of the IFA said as much when talking about the intensification of dairy farming leading to increased culling of unwanted male dairy calves.

OK, we're making progress here.
Heretofore on this forum, All farmers were disgustingly referred to as killers, rapists, haters and a host of other vile and untrue descriptions.
I'm glad that you recognise and acknowledge the care and affection that the majority of livestock farmers give to their animals.

The fact remains that farming in Ireland is by and large very extensive, sure there are a small percentage of intensive operations (who operate to very high standards and are highly regulated and inspected), But as so often happened on this forum upto now, all farmers got tarred with the one brush which was grossly unfair.

White Clover

Unearthly wrote: »

Again stunning something is unbelievably unethical imo as well. I've had 2 dogs in my lifetime with family. Loved them both. Stunning either of them would be evil in my eyes.

And your post was dreadful. You quoted a post from 2 years ago and took it out of context. Jive like me is against killing animals.

Its a blatant contradiction.

White Clover

White Clover wrote: »

OK, we're making progress here.
Heretofore on this forum, All farmers were disgustingly referred to as killers, rapists, haters and a host of other vile and untrue descriptions.
I'm glad that you recognise and acknowledge the care and affection that the majority of livestock farmers give to their animals.

The fact remains that farming in Ireland is by and large very extensive, sure there are a small percentage of intensive operations (who operate to very high standards and are highly regulated and inspected), But as so often happened on this forum upto now, all farmers got tarred with the one brush which was grossly unfair.

**** your idea of progress.

I’m not here to explain to you why I’m vegan and why I won’t pay someone to breed, imprison and slaughter animals for my pleasure.

Who do you think you are ?

It’s ****ing abhorrent how animals are treated before they are the slaughtered.

It’s also hypocritical how many people pay thousands in vet fees for their cats and dogs and allow this abhorrent cruelty to happen to cows, pigs and chickens. Not only that but they are willing to pay for those poor animals to live a **** life and then be slaughtered by buying their juices and meat.

I have no ****ing idea why you think you can come questioning me, as a vegan on this forum, as to who or what I am.

Your idea of ‘care and affection’ involves imprisonment and death.

White Clover

[Deleted User] wrote: »

**** your progress.

I’m not here to explain to you why I’m vegan and why I won’t pay someone to breed, imprison and slaughter animals for my pleasure.

Who do you think you are ?

It’s ****ing abhorrent how animals are treated before they are the slaughtered.

It’s also hypocritical how many people pay thousands in vet fees for their cats and dogs and allow this abhorrent cruelty to happen to cows, pigs and chickens. Not only that but they are willing to pay for those poor animals to live a **** life and then be slaughtered by buying their juices and meat.

I have no ****ing idea why you think you can come questioning me, as a vegan on this forum, as to who or what I am.

Your idea of ‘care and affection’ involves imprisonment and death.

Please, have some respect,

The next time you're talking to a vet who treats both large and small animals, ask him/her where they see the most badly treated animals.
I'll give you a hint, it's not farmers.....

No need to tell me what my idea is. I care for my animals EVERY day, I know what I'm talking about.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

I'd strongly disagree. The poster is not mixing anything up. In Ireland Animal welfare is enshrined in law and safeguards the health and welfare of all animals whether farmed, wild or domestic.

This from a previous comment here



This type of abolitionism approach does not support animal welfare at all



And imo that's completely wrong. Looking after animals properly is absolutely conductive to their welfare. Its not only a legal requirement but also the right thing to do imo I'm sorry you don't seem to agree with that.

Interestingingly abolitionism also seeks to end the keeping of animals as pets / companion animals for any reason.

At what point do you stop repeating the same old **** time and time again ?

You believe it’s ok to breed and slaughter animals. Well done.
We don’t.

You live by your governments idea of what is right or wrong.
Well done.
We don’t agree with the government.

Your idea of caring for animals involves death.
Well done.
Ours doesn’t.

No vegan or vegetarian in here gives a **** what you think and that’s because you have skin in the game.
You are defending where you get your money from.
Well done.
We don’t care.

jive

White Clover wrote: »

Its a blatant contradiction.

Sweet, I didn’t realise we could use me as a source of truth.

Anything White Clover posts is erroneous.

You can quote me on that.

White Clover

jive wrote: »

Sweet, I didn’t realise we could use me as a source of truth.

Anything White Clover posts is erroneous.

You can quote me on that.

Lol! Looks like you're trying to hide from what you wrote.



Less of the personal stuff, there is no need for it.

White Clover

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At what point do you stop repeating the same old **** time and time again ?

You believe it’s ok to breed and slaughter animals. Well done.
We don’t.

You live by your governments idea of what is right or wrong.
Well done.
We don’t agree with the government.

Your idea of caring for animals involves death.
Well done.
Ours doesn’t.

No vegan or vegetarian in here gives a **** what you think and that’s because you have skin in the game.
You are defending where you get your money from.
Well done.
We don’t care.

Klopp, if you think people don't have "skin" in the Vegan game, i urge you to reflect a little.
McDonald's are not promoting and trying to sell Vegan food because they believe what you believe!

jive

White Clover wrote: »

Lol! Looks like you're trying to hide from what you wrote.



Less of the personal stuff, there is no need for it.

I’m not trying to hide from anything. It starts with the word ‘typically’, it’s not a statement of fact.

You can take it personally or, as it was clearly written, as a joke. You do you.

gozunda

Bigbooty wrote: »

Actually Irish law, and welfare laws prohibits unnecessary suffering which ultimately provides a legal framework for necessary suffering. If you take Mink farming for example, which is being abolished in this country as we speak. Legally speaking you are allowed to keep them in tiny crates, side by side. We know that minks are highly territorial, solitary animals that kill each other to defend their territory which is over a rather large area. Yet legally we can keep thousands of them in confinement. Their existence is absolute torture and farming them is completely cruel but it is/was allowed under Irish law.

Hope you mind me replying to your comment. First thing I dont know anything about mink farming other than what I've seen and read in newspapers etc. As to the claim that "Irish law, and welfare laws prohibits unnecessary suffering which ultimately provides a legal framework for necessary suffering". I'd suggest it is quite the opposite tbh.

Mink farming in Ireland and elsewhere was introduced as a new sector at a time when animal welfare controls and legislation were in their infancy

Afaik one of the big issues is that minks have experienced relatively little active domestic selection and imo are not suited to being bred or reared under existing conditions.

From my reading of the current Animal health and welfare legislation - it would appear that mink farming does not meet current legislative standards and that is one of the principle reasons why it is being phased out.

So as to the above - current health and welfare legislation does not "provide a legal framework for necessary suffering".

Even before the current Covid issues - Ireland was set to become the 15th country in the European union to ban fur farming after the country's cabinet approved to phase-out fur farming.

I'd suggest taking a read of the current animal health and welfare legislation to see what is and what is not permitted with regard to safeguarding the welfare of all animals.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/15/section/11/enacted/en/html#sec11

Tbh I personally don't support intensive type production whether arable, horticulture or animal.

White Clover

White Clover wrote: »

Klopp, if you think people don't have "skin" in the Vegan game, i urge you to reflect a little.
McDonald's are not promoting and trying to sell Vegan food because they believe what you believe!

No way.

This doesn’t seem fair now.

You were obliged to declare your genius status, imo, pre discussion.

So you’re saying businesses try and make money ?

Is that all businesses ?

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Hope you find mind me replying to your comment. First thing I dont know anything about mink farming other than what I've seen and read in newspapers etc. As to the claim that "Irish law, and welfare laws prohibits unnecessary suffering which ultimately provides a legal framework for necessary suffering". I'd suggest it is quite the opposite tbh.

Mink farming in Ireland and elsewhere was introduced as a new sector at a time when animal welfare controls and legislation were in their infancy

Afaik one of the big issues is that minks have experienced relatively little active domestic selection and imo are not suited to being bred or reared under existing conditions.

From my reading of the current Animal health and welfare legislation - it would appear that mink farming does not meet current legislative standards and that is one of the principle reasons why it is being phased out.

So as to the above - current health and welfare legislation does not "provide a legal framework for necessary suffering".

Even before the current Covid issues - Ireland was set to become the 15th country in the European union to ban fur farming after the country's cabinet approved to phase-out fur farming.

I'd suggest taking a read of the current animal health and welfare legislation to see what is and what is not permitted with regard to safeguarding the welfare of all animals.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/15/section/11/enacted/en/html#sec11

Tbh I personally don't support intensive type production whether arable, horticulture or animal.

Don’t need to read anything from a government to understand that breeding, imprisoning and slaughtering animals is wrong.

I’d never take my guidance from a government.

I think most vegan and vegetarians feel the same.

So that may help save you time from posting those ‘laws’ and guidelines all the time. There. Done you a favour.

What happens to cows, pigs and chicken is cruel, to me, almost beyond comprehension.

auspicious

White Clover wrote: »

Lol! Looks like you're trying to hide from what you wrote.

What jive wrote is perfectly adequate
" not animal welfare in which the animal is ultimately killed"
Jive implied nuanced welfare. I too disagree with welfare in which the animal is ultimately killed. That welfare does not hold dear the end goal of the animals' ultimate wellbeing but the outcome for a best possible product ergo profit.
Veganism concentrates on animal rights through liberation. By this method we strive for perfect welfare in all it's facets.

Ten of Swords

A reminder to all posters to read the new charter.

This thread is once again becoming antagonistic and combative so I want to give everyone an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the forum rules before cards and bans become necessary.


Point 1

This is a forum that caters specifically for vegans and vegetarians, or anyone who prefers to avoid all or certain animal products in their diet. This means that, while others are welcome to post here, the protected view is that of vegans and vegetarians. If you contribute to a thread you are expected to be willing to learn about the issues involved and listen to what is said by members of the community/ies involved.

Point 3

If you are a farmer or aligned with the farming community, we welcome your input as long as it is respectful of veg*n perspectives. We will not allow badgering of posters or attempts to brigade the forum in order to promote any pro-farming agendas. Many of the views expressed in this forum will be hurtful to members of the farming community because veg*ns and farmers often hold completely opposing ideologies with regards to animal welfare that cannot be resolved. We would draw your attention to the Farming & Forestry forum, which obviously holds a pro-farming viewpoint and would be a good place to discuss what you feel the positives of farming are.

I have a feeling I'll be referring to the charter frequently for the next while. Posters who can't post in a civil manner, or who find themselves getting too worked up to debate meaningfully should not post, this applies to everyone.

Bigbooty

gozunda wrote: »

Hope you find mind me replying to your comment. First thing I dont know anything about mink farming other than what I've seen and read in newspapers etc. As to the claim that "Irish law, and welfare laws prohibits unnecessary suffering which ultimately provides a legal framework for necessary suffering". I'd suggest it is quite the opposite tbh.

Not at all, In he interests of reasonable discussion. Ultimately though the law isn't a basis for my morality nor should it be for anyones. It's just there to give guidance on what is permissible.

Considering that the EU is the largest producer of fur in the world I don't think they've got plans to phase it out anytime soon. If it wasn't for various welfare groups and animal rights activists we probably wouldn't have banned it. EU and Irish law are pretty much the same.

I'm copying this directly from part 12 of the animal welfare act which gives guidance on suffering :

(4) The considerations to which regard may be had when determining, for the purposes of this section, whether suffering is unnecessary may, amongst any other considerations, include—

(a) whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided, terminated or reduced,

(b) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with this Act, another enactment, animal health and welfare regulations or a code of practice,

(c) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as—

(i) benefiting the health and welfare of the animal, or

(ii) protecting a person, property or another animal,

(d) whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned, and

(e) whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a competent and humane person.

Many of the practices observed in intensive farming systems such as those observed in poultry and pig farming are fundamentally cruel. Being compliant with guidance and legislation isn't particularly relevant to whether something's cruel or not. The same guidelines have facilitated an increase in intensive animal agriculture in Ireland which really doesn't look like its slowing due to growing demand internationally.

I know we can debate what is or isn't cruel but it really isn't going to lead anywhere. Is there any particular reason why you're against intensive animal farming?

gozunda

Bigbooty wrote: »

Not at all, In he interests of reasonable discussion. Ultimately though the law isn't a basis for my morality nor should it be for anyones. It's just there to give guidance on what is permissible.

Considering that the EU is the largest producer of fur in the world I don't think they've got plans to phase it out anytime soon. If it wasn't for various welfare groups and animal rights activists we probably wouldn't have banned it. EU and Irish law are pretty much the same.

I'm copying this directly from part 12 of the animal welfare act which gives guidance on suffering :

Many of the practices observed in intensive farming systems such as those observed in poultry and pig farming are fundamentally cruel. Being compliant with guidance and legislation isn't particularly relevant to whether something's cruel or not. The same guidelines have facilitated an increase in intensive animal agriculture in Ireland which really doesn't look like its slowing due to growing demand internationally.

I know we can debate what is or isn't cruel but it really isn't going to lead anywhere. Is there any particular reason why you're against intensive animal farming?

No worries. Tbh I wasn't sure after the review thread.

That said one as far as I can see - one persons morality can be another person's excuse to act according to their own dictates. Thats why we have legislation covering everything from driving to robbery and beyond. And its not just what is permissable but rather is laid down as legal requirements. With penalties and fines for those who are convicted of breaking the law.

On mink- the phasing out of mink farming has already been set out here. I dont know about the rest of the EU tbf.

As detailed I dont support intensive practices and would favour extensive production whether arable, horticultural and animal. And for the simple reason that this means improved welfare standards for all types of production and environmental amelioration

On the legislation covering "unnecessary suffering" for all animals including domestic and wild. A simple example would be a wild animal - which requires capture and treatment. Holding that animal for treatment would involve some 'suffering' for that animal but that would be permitted to care for the animal. Similarly a horse being kept on stable rest because of injury could also be said to be 'suffering' to some degree but that would be permissible under the Health and Welfare Act legislation

That said both pig and poultry enterprises ime here are highly regulated and inspected. With fines and convictions not being uncommon where legislation is not adhered to. And again regulation and legislation provides a framework to be acted upon. I've no doubt that changes and improvements can and will continue to be advanced. There are of course rogue operators who should be given no quarter imo.

I'd like to think that that majority of small to medium farms will continue to carry out extensive production in this country. Unfortunately too often consumers just want to buy cheap food or presume it doesn't matter if food is intensively produced or comes from areas with few environmental standards or regulations.

auspicious

Paraphrasing Temple Garndin: Everything's terrible but I can't say that , no politics. We have to fix it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5R-FGR3zg7Q&t=604s
While welfare is essential, rights is the goal.

gozunda

Afaik Mary Grandin is a prominent proponent for the humane treatment of livestock and works as a consultant to the livestock industry on animal behavior. I'm fairly confident that the absolute majority of posters here would agree with her advocacy for animal welfare tbh. The interviewers summing up seems fairly balanced tbh.

auspicious

As do I to a degree. Yet however humane or high-welfare one tries to make it, there is no good way to take the life of an animal.

White Clover

auspicious wrote: »

As do I to a degree. Yet however humane or high-welfare one tries to make it, there is no good way to take the life of an animal.

I'd say any animal would be no different to yourself if faced with being torn to death by a dog in the wild or a clean shot to the head, they would choose the latter, as would I.

auspicious

White Clover wrote: »

I'd say any animal would be no different to yourself if faced with being torn to death by a dog in the wild or a clean shot to the head, they would choose the latter, as would I.

This ìs non sequitur.
A pointless statement.