Messages

I'm unemployed right now but actually I've really wanted to visit Roskilde for a while. So I may take you up on that... if not this year, the next

Assuming I'm no longer unemployed by then of course....

Hello AGSers,

Anybody coming to Glastonbury 2009 or interested in going? There are rumours of Blur headlining this year, and a whole bunch of other great bands. Tickets are £175 but 90% of them have already been sold (yes yes, I know, before the line-up was announced...)

Glastonbury '08 was one of the best experiences of my life, so I totally recommend it. I went with a Bullfrog/Lionheader last year and this year I plan to pitch a giant Bullfrog logo by our tent (thereby making us the coolest tent EVER), and also coerce Molyneux into coming. Hopefully this will convince you that Glastonbury is the place to be this summer...

Garagegothic, you have saved me (and my idiot friend)

If you come to Glastonbury I will reward you with Hot Spicy Cider or a (free-range ) hogroast sandwich... !

Problem resolved!

'lo all,

My idiot friend left it until three hours before the closing date of a competition to enter. Then he realised he didn't have any of the MP3s on his home PC.

I decided to search my PC for any old tunes of his I had.

LONG STORY SHORT I need someone to rip audio from a .mov file within the next hour (closing date of the comp) for me! I have no software and no idea how to go about this, and man, if someone does it I will personally... hug the crap out of you if you go to Glastonbury this year.

ALL MY LOVE,

Salks

Hey Pixel,

In the UK there are strict laws around what you can label as free range. It's also very easy over here to see when things are for instance, approved by the Soil Association (which garuantees the highest standard of animal welfare).  I think organic food is a completely separate issue.

Some people still ATTEMPT to label things misleadingly (I once nearly bought battery eggs because the farm name was FREEDOM FARM and was plastered in big letters across the box...), but the attempts are weak because of how strict things are over here.

The US could perhaps adopt a similar approach? The fact that people are allowed to misleadingly label things and that there are no strict guidelines as to what makes up "organic" or "free range" etc is pretty poor for the consumer really, and also it shouldn't have to prevent people from trying to buy ethically... but from what I can see, it does...

So you're in support of my argument? I'm not sure I quite understand? The point I'm making is that ideally, animals should be given a good life AND a fast and painless-as-possible death. This is what you're saying too, right?

Don't worry Goldmund, in time you will realise that nobody is out to get you personally and that you may be overreacting just a little bit.

[Stupot]

Chickens are fed so much they can't even walk. Do you think they care how they die? If you were in their place Meowster, would you? Not really. And even if companies were forced to "respect" what they kill to make your food..they would. But still make the poor things suffer while alive, but well ...they'd treat them right before they kill them.

I never said anything about how they feel about dying, it's the life they lead before death that bothers me, and probably quite bothers them too. I don't understand what you're saying? "They'd make them suffer while alive but treat them right before they kill them"? What does this sentence mean?

So the point shouldn't be "They kill them without respect, don't buy products"
But "I'm willing not to eat chicken anymore, since they treat them without respect do the same so companies will consider a different approach."

I think you've entirely missed the point I've made over and over again. You can buy free range meat from butchers, that is certified as having come from farms with good animal welfare practises. If you buy this meat instead of badly farmed meat, you are 1) helping to 'force' intensive farmers to change their practises since more people will be buying free range and 2) supporting the farmers with decent practises who already exist.

I'm not quite sure I get your point to be honest, but it sounds like you're saying the only way to change anything is to stop eating meat at all?

Stupot: I'm glad you're against the cruelty but if you don't believe it really happens on a wide scale then I can't really do much to change your mind. I've seen these places with my own eyes, it's a well known fact they exist, it's not just propaganda from animal rights activists. The people who claim they believe it's all just propaganda are usually the people who feel uncomfortable, in my experience, of buying this meat and want to pretend to themselves it isn't happening. But it is and if you don't believe that I don't know what to say to convince you.

Look at all the cheap meat products in the cheapest supermarkets - everything from frozen chicken pies to chicken tikka sandwich filler, or ham spread, or own brand mayonnaise... where do you think all this incredibly cheap meat comes from?

ProgZ: My issue is animal welfare AND hygiene too. The animal welfare one bugs me most as I don't buy cheap meat so I'm not putting myself at risk by eating it, whereas animals will continue to suffer horribly whether I avoid their meat or not

Also talking of Bird Flu, I believe that it was shown that the bird flu travelled by road routes used to transport cheaply produced live animals. Don't quote me because I'm not sure of the exact details, but I believe scientists proved that it mainly travelled because of humans, and not migratory birds etc. Then look at things like BSE which I believe originated from feeding cows cheap feed made of each others brains or something? So yeah the hygiene is a pretty fucking big issue and one definitely worth mentioning. Also if it helps people make a change to more ethically farmed meat and some animals are happier in the process, win

According to the article you linked to they are not using the kinds of weapons that are banned.  The article says that they are using a phosphorous rounds as target markers and not as incendiary bombs, which is apparently what is banned by the UN.  

What makes me laugh is that some guys in suits sit there and decided which bombs are the good bombs and which bombs are the bad bombs.

I don't think there are good and bad, but some are definitely worse. Some are just crap war weapons, but some are fucking intentionally the cruellest possible thing you could design.

Heck, even Hitler had his boundaries.  He didn't allow the use of chemical bombs after having experienced mustard gas as a soldier during WW1.

I've never heard this before, have you got a link where I could read more? Hitler fascinates me. He was such an evil guy (obviously), but then he seemed to have loads of randomly 'soft spots'... like being vegetarian because he loved animals...? He'd kill millions of Jews, but wouldn't use chemical bombs for ethical reasons? Makes me wonder whether, if he hadn't been so hideously misled, he could have had potential to be a great and worthy leader instead of just... Hitler.

Would love to be able to explore his mind, psychonauts style...

Can someone explain to me why this is happening? Obviously I know the basics but I feel like I must be missing out on some vital piece of information, because I don't understand what Israel are doing right now, with phosphorus bombs and what, 1000 civilian deaths or something? What's the point in this exactly?

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are huge evils on the other side too... neither side is perfect in this... it just seems that what Israel is doing right now is a little uh... extreme and I'm not sure why they're doing it. So maybe I have missed a piece of information somewhere whilst I've had my head down in all this jobseeking business.

White phosphorus bombs are fucking cruel and I believe banned by the UN. They are surely also an impossible weapon to "control" in the same way as a gun. I mean, you can shoot someone fairly accurately with a gun, but a white phosphorus bomb:

Severe respiratory problems can result in anyone exposed to the smoke and burning chemical particles that rain down over an area the size of a football pitch.

They can also burn the skin to the bone....

Interested in hearing viewpoints from people of either side...

I understand that they're still firing rockets into Israel? Is this true? WTF is going on?!?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/phosphorus-bombs-video-israel-gaza

Okay seriously, what the fuck is going on here?

PETA aren't actually all that great when it comes to animal welfare. One of their slogans is something like - "better off dead than in a cage", and as such they put down something like 90% of the animals that come into their shelters without bothering to try and rehome them. I think my cats would both disagree with that slogan very much. Very little of the money they receive in donations, a paltry sum actually goes to trying to find homes for domestic animals that have been abandoned.

I was very frustrated the other day... I think it was in the Gaurdian that I read something about Sea Kittens, but the person writing it (who I believe was a PETA member) raised a lot of very interesting points about fish that we generally overlook as we see them as well, just fish. About them having as much or more cognitive ability than many animals we frequently interact with etc. I suspect very much that the points were exaggerated or worded cleverly to support her argument (I'm sure the average cod is not the kind of awesome fish she was describing to be honest), but it annoyed me because the "Sea Kitten" campaign has so far utterly failed to achieve anything despite having so much money poured into it that could have been spent on rehoming animals or something. All it's done is make people laugh, and it's failed to deliver ANY of the amazing facts that this journalist did in her few paragraphs. Have you read the online book? Tony the Tuna graduated from university with a degree in neuroscience and environmental studies? No he didn't, he's a fish!

One of my friends worked on a trawler once and after witnessing the fishing process he stopped eating fish completely. He wasn't even a particularly "animal welfarey" person like I am. It wasn't even so much the (quite painful) death of the fish that bothered him - it was the utter waste. Thousands and thousands of dead fish thrown back into the sea as utter waste because of the fishing regulations, because they 'caught too much' and aren't allowed to take it back to shore. Completely destroying our seas, needlessly killing thousands upon thousands of fish and then just throwing them back into the sea as waste...

But PETA fails to convey these issues properly to people because it alienates them by making up ridiculous stories about fish and having a totalitarian "YOU SHOULDN'T EAT FISH!" approach, when in fact I think it's quite bloody normal for cats, humans, bears, birds, even some kinds of SPIDERS to eat fish. So to tell millions of people that they're without doubt WRONG for eating fish is sort of counter productive, whereas giving them unbiased facts about the health of the ocean, the sins of trawler fishing and the ability of fish to feel pain etc is a far better idea. This may encourage people to make more informed decisions about the kind of fish they buy, or hey it might even make them buy less fish or stop them buying it at all. But no, PETA would rather spend their money agitating people which, really, is pretty unproductive.

Erm so that's the beef I have with PETA. If anybody cares, there actually is a lot to be concerned about when it comes to our oceans, but you're not going to find the information you need from PETA and you're probably not going to have your opinion swayed by them either.

Bonus fact: fish is delicious.

Essentially what they are saying is Jesus was evil because he ate a fish, if your mind is as warped as mine.

Layabout, I am amazed that anyones primary reaction to the hilarity/ridiculousness/waste of time of this PETA campaign, could be anger that it suggests jesus was evil for eating a fish. I don't know why, it just seems like the funniest, strangest and most far removed conclusion you could possibly draw from it all.

I watched the video and read the material. I do see more of the point and I have obviously missed some of it.
I don't know what to say, Yuffy. I mean, I'm all for good causes and the like, but I just don't know what to say.

You and AnimalAid are right, though, there's no need for these chickens to be raised so carelessly.
What are these activists aiming to do? Shut them down? Or just get people not to eat them?
What I don't understand, from the farm in the video, is why haven't they been warned about the sanitary aspect of the facility? In my eyes that's the only thing I'm worried about, you know, the chickens haivng to lay down in their own waste. I've been to a chicken farm that was almost a dead-ringer for the one in the video (except I wasn't there at midnight with my camera and nightvision) and everything was great, proper ventilation, sunlight (like being outside, sunlight), adequate food and water and fresh bedding.
But like I was saying before. There should always be a person (sometimes known as "The Inspector") that visits the farm monthly (and unexpectedly - that's how they getcha') to inspect the buisness and check if everything is sanitary and running occording to regulation. If not, you get a warning and a chance to clean up, if you don't, then you're shut down. Why are they still in buisness? All AnimalAid would have to do is show this inspector person the video and they'd definately get a talking to - or at least one would imagine.

See that's the problem... it's perfectly legal to treat chickens like this. That's what I can't believe! Nobody could come and shut these places down because they're entirely legal. Which is what AnimalAid are trying to do - get these condition outlawed. The WSPA are also a great organization, they help to protect animals from things such as long distance transportation before slaughter (which is another really unthinkably horrific torture for animals), and they do so by trying to get laws changed and regulations put in place to stop it from happening. Which I think is the right way to do it.

The intensive barn you're describing sounds a little better, but there are still practises like having the chickens 'debeaked', and the fact they use specially bred chickens that cannot support their own weight by the time they've reached a few weeks old - meaning they live most of their short life in pain. It these practises were outlawwed I think it'd make a big difference for the chicken's welfare and be a step in the right direction.

I believe Britain is planning to phase out the very worst kind of battery farms within the next few years, which sounds great on the surface.... But there are worries that the cheapest retailers (such as Asda and Tescos) or companies using chicken or eggs as ingredients in their products, will simply import cheap eggs etc from overseas where the animals are treated just as badly (potentially worse depending on where they're imported from). It's never easy is it?

I hope the government also plans to put regulations in place to prevent companies from being cheap-asses and just imported cheap, nastily produced meat and eggs from abroad, but I think whether they do or don't it's still important for consumers to take a stand against this kinda thing.

Obviously not all chickens are gonna be super epic free-range with hundreds of acres of lush land to peck about on, but I really want to see the conditions improved for those less lucky... no debeaking, no cages, freedom to perch and explore, no starving to force them to moult, no rapid-growing breeds of chicken that can't support their own weight.

After the general reactions to this thread I'm inclined to believe that it's far easier to go free-range/organic in the UK. In the UK something has to follow a strict set of rules to be have an "organic" label, and in terms of chickens this means that they have the best welfare standards possible... Any chicken labelled "organic" here, for instance, must be outdoor raised, slow-growing and fed decent healthy food without growth enhancers etc. We also have supermarkets that label things clearly (some don't, such as tescos I think), and lots of local butchers who source their meat from small local farms. I think we have it easy. It's easy for us to go into a supermarket and make a conscious decision because everything is clearly labelled, and I suspect very much that since it's so much more common here, that the price difference between free-range/organic isn't as extreme as it may be elsewhere. Maybe a solution would be to bring in regulations that require meat and eggs packaging to state the source and details such as the farming methods used, where the animal was raised and slaughtered (for instance I'd avoid even organic free range meat if it was raised in germany and slaughtered in the UK... it means the animal suffered an unnecessarily long and stressful journey before it's end when I could just buy the nice piece of locally produced beef next to it!). Maybe if people were readily given this information they'd naturally sway towards buying better produced meat? Hmm I don't know. I just made myself sad.

One day I'll live on a farm again and will have the plumpest, healthiest chickens you ever did see.

Wow really??? Yay!!!! !
you made me smile and woop!

[Why is this such an important issue to you?]

And I should also clarify this:

I am sad about this comment: <insert Snake's mouth here>

Well, what I was getting at there was simply that I wouldn't tuck them in, make sure they're not suicidal and read the damn things a bed time story before shutting off the lights at night.
Not that I don't care if they're getting the razor-edged whip every half hour because their lazy eye hasn't straightened out yet.

I think the solution to your problem would be for the employers to put up cameras to spot abuse by their employees.
And if the abuse is throughout the whole outfit, it should be shut down. Easier said than done of course, I know. If you're going to complain about what I just said, than why are you even posting here? Other than moral support, I don't see the point.

But, I must say that I'm not going to stop buying hamburg at Shop n' Save because it doesn't have an "Abuse Free" label on it. How is anyone supposed to know for sure anyway? There's always going to be a cow somewhere that's getting kicked in the gut because she kicked the milker off (AGAIN), just like a kid getting their ass warmed after already being told twice not to talk back.
Or an employee of these said places that are abuse free that are beating the animals behind closed doors, or blind eyes, because it gets them off.

It'll never be solved. You can't win. I can't win.

I know I was an abusive asshole at times to the cows when I was pissed off, and it doesn't make me right for sure. Yeah, I agree with what you're trying to do, but it's an awful hard task to accomplish especially to be posting here about it instead of somewhere that would be more effective.

I don't agree with all the videos I see out here on the subject either (half, if not most are brutal, but not all); I know I could go to my brother's farm right now, with my video camera, film the whole night and come home. When I'm home, I'll edit the shit out of it so every time he slaps/smacks a cow for stepping on his foot/kicking milker off/etc.., I'll make sure to repeat it a dozon times (include slow-motion of course) with sad music playing to make it seem worse than what it is. I'll also make sure I film the large amounts of cow shit in the gutter since he can't afford to get the gutter chain replaced this winter, resulting in having to shovel it out by hand. I'll switch back and forth from the manuer to the cow's eyes. Since cows always have fluid running out of their eyes, I'll make it look like they are crying, people will be more saddened. I'll also make sure I shoot inside the calf pen where there is always a good amount calf piss because the price of sawdust went up (AGAIN). Hmm, let's get his cold-hearted ass out of the buisness, eh?
My brother loves cows and especially doesn't want to lose the farm that's been in the family since 1860.

But let's buy free range, shall we, since that will lessen the amount of money we get for the beef we sell, complementing the amount of money we lose because the cost of the milk truck just went up seven dollars, adding another nail in the coffin since you only get paid for the amount of milk you produce - not the amount of time, blood, sweat, frustration and don't forget the money that goes into making that milk.


Listen, I know I'm coming off as a total cunt, but I agree with you, you've got a great heart and your doing this post for the right reasons, you're a good person - but I'm just not going to spend the extra cash just for the label that says that the animal I'm about to fry in my scratched-up frying pan (with butter, salt and pepper) was treated fairly and was asked out to all the school dances.

Snake I think you're misunderstanding the issue. I can't be 100% sure but from what you're saying, you seem to think I have beef with people hitting cows when herding them or occasionally getting frustrated at a pig that won't get into his pen. This is not the kind of abuse I'm talking about (in fact having lived on a farm I can agree with you that this is not actually abuse, I'm under no illusions about that).

It sounds like the farm you worked on was a good farm with decent practises, and that's the kind of farming I think should be promoted. Maybe where you're from the type of intensive farming I'm talking about is more rare. I could be wrong but if you live somewhere in middle America with loads of open land and pastures, it's possible that they ALL farm out on open ranches and all the animals are able to roam free range before they die. That would be awesome.

The type of farming I'm talking about is actually a very cruel intensive practise that is used in some places, and is very commonplace actually.

Here's a video about intensive farmed chicken Snake, which I think you should watch so you'll know what it is I'm talking about. I've raised free range chickens before and they had very low mortalities... the only chick that ever died was eaten by a fox! Bear in mind that the chickens in this video are all in a lot of pain because their fragile bone structure is unable to support their weight. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4vimEBT4plc&feature=related

It is no wonder that stress levels in the birds are high and that continuous use of anti-biotic is needed to keep the birds alive. Growth promoters are also sometimes fed to force the rate of growth. Very often the birds grow so fast that their legs cannot support their bodies. Large extractor fans ensure that ammonia levels are kept to bearable levels. Because much of the birds' time is spent sitting in cramped conditions, and as no fresh litter is given, the legs and breasts of many birds are burnt by the manure.

Here's some information that I beg you to read about battery farmed chicken eggs. The price between free range eggs and battery eggs is so small and affordable too... http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/egg-battery.html

Battery hens are debeaked with a hot machine blade once and often twice during their lives, typically at one day old and again at seven weeks old, because a young beak will often grow back. Debeaking causes severe, chronic pain and suffering researchers compare to human phantom limb and stump pain. Between the horn and bone of the beak is a think layer of highly sensitive tissue. The hot blade cuts through this sensitive tissue impairing the hen's ability to eat, drink, wipe her beak, and preen normally

Having read that Snake, can you honestly tell me you don't care about the lives of the chickens before their slaughter? I raised chickens and I raised them in a free range environment where they could grow to become inquisitive, happy, bold hens who clucked about happily, gave themselves dust baths and came squawking anytime they saw me with what they suspected might be treats. So seeing those hens in abject misery and completely unnatural conditions is sad for me, and I can't imagine how it could be less sad for anyone else... especially you, if you have (as I suspect) come from the same farming background as I have - where animals are raised outdoors in traditional ways


PS. Here's an amazing interview I just read with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall who is a guy I have the utmost respect for:

Why is this such an important issue to you?
Chickens were the first ever livestock that I raised at River Cottage. They've been giving me eggs and meat all my life, and now I rear my own. And I think they're the front line of animal welfare in this country, and the way in which they're farmed is something to which the public are denied access.

Why was it necessary to set up your own intensive chicken farm?
It seems counterintuitive, doesn't it? Basically, we tried to get access to the industry but approaches were shut down pretty quickly. So the clear, if slightly warped logic, was that I would have to raise at least one crop of standard birds according to industry regulations in order to fully understand it. It was in a scaled down experiment - we raised 2,500 birds.

The fact that no intensive farmers wanted to allow you access tells its own story, doesn't it?
I think that's right, yes. At the heart of the problem is a bird which is now more or less a genetic freak. It takes half the time [less than 40 days] to raise a bird to market weight of two kilos than it did 30 years ago. And, in order to do that, you need very specialised conditions: [the chickens] are indoors and are completely without natural light so that they are constantly feeding.

It must have been emotionally difficult for you to operate in that kind of environment.
Definitely, at times it was very difficult. At times I was carried along by the sheer amount of work to do, and the fascination of it. There is a grim fascination in the simple business of how this is done. On one level, I had a grudging respect for people who run such farms, because they're so finely-tuned - it's such a delicate balance you have to get to produce these birds in this way.

What kind of reception did you get from the poultry farmers in the industry?
I talked to a number of them, mostly off the record, and they're keen to work in a less intensive industry, but they can't do it as long as the supermarkets and the fast food outlets are demanding such low prices from them. Given a choice, most farmers would prefer to de-intensify.

Aside from the ethics of this issue, is the quality of meat you get from an intensive bird considerably inferior?
Absolutely. On several occasions during the series we offer people free-range chicken, sometimes for the first time, and they said categorically that they could taste the difference.

What was the idea behind getting the local housing estate involved?
They were representative of the supermarket shoppers from Axminster. They're from the tough end of town and, a lot of them are on a tight budget. So for them it was really about getting them to see beyond the bargain two-for-a-fiver label, and getting to know the bird and getting to understand that all chicken they buy has had some kind of life.

Inevitably, there's a trade off for them, shopping on a budget. You do confront that issue, don't you?
We do. Of course, there are people on a very tight budget for whom that would be a real struggle. But at the same time, if the minimum welfare standards for indoor poultry were raised, those people could eat cheaper chicken with a clearer conscience.

Ah okay I see what you mean. Well do you agree with what I said (that basically although that is the case, it shouldn't be - we shouldn't treat "less cute" animals in a way that would make us criminals if we treated a cat or a dog that way)? I think it's worth a thought.

[Snake]

When was the last time you walked past a group of people and thought "oh there are some individuals gathered together in a group" rather than "there's a group of people?" I love dogs, but when I see a group of dogs I just think "huh, a pack of dogs". I guess what I'm saying is, I don't quite see the point in what you're saying? I don't mean that in a rude way, but I just don't get quite what you mean? Do you mean we've become kind of disconnected with cows as being other living creatures with feelings etc? If so, this may be true for some people but I think you'll agree that just because we have stopped regarding them as living beings doesn't necessarily mean that's right. They're as much living beings capable of fear and pain as our cats and dogs are, and to be able to forget that and turn a blind eye to their unecessary suffering... well what does that make us? I think we'd all like to think of ourselves as people who would not stand for seeing any living creature being unecessarily hurt or bullied. If you saw a group of kids kicking a dog you'd step in, right? If your neighbour kept his dog chained in his yard day and night in the rain and cold, you'd call up the RSPCA (or equivelent) wouldn't you? So why is it that so many of us can turn a blind eye to the suffering of cows and pigs and chickens? As you say it may be because we are so used to seeing them packaged as meat that we've forgotten that they deserve a decent life before their deaths too... but surely that's a rubbish excuse to turn a blind eye? If you've never met a pig or a cow or a chicken, let me tell you: they're pretty awesome. Not as awesome as my pet goat, but awesome nonetheless


Snake - maybe you didn't read the link text to the photos, some of them were actually examples of happy free range animals. However I'm worried if you don't see the problem with the photo of the chickens crammed together. Maybe you didn't see it? I am sad about this comment: I don't really give a shit about each individual cow's quality of life.

I've also lived on a farm and around farms, and I've seen both cows in a free range environment with minimal stresses, and cows in a much different, more intensive environment in which they were constantly stressed, reared (bizarrely, because I'm not even sure if it's that common with cows) in a dark shed in which they stood in a foot deep pile of their own shit all day long, giving some of them foot infections which made standing agonizing for them... not that they could lie down because they were standing in a foot deep slush of their own waste! So while I'm sure you've worked on a farm where the practises were quite good (and these are the kinds of practises I would like most people to adopt), other practises ARE put into place that are far less kind, on other farms. I'd also disagree with your statement that cows get used to their conditions - although they may not make such a fuss over them if they're not used to an alternative, it's still not a good or noble or kind thing to keep cows in the kind of environment my neighbour did. Also personally I don't want to eat a cow that's been marinated in its own shit before it gets slaughtered.

I believe pigs and chickens and turkeys overall get far worse treatment than cows anyway (I could be wrong but from my experience this is true), maybe if you are interested (which I gather you are at least a little if you took the time to reply in this thread) you should read about some of the horrible farming practises for those animals. In the UK at least it's easy, if you want to, to buy meat from the kinds of animals that you would have farmed

Basically what I'm saying is... it sounds like your experience of working on a farm is of working on a good farm, and those farms are excellent and I buy my meat from them (or from my free range butcher who sources from farms like this). But the issue I have and I think that people should be more aware of is that some farms are not like that - some have very very cruel practices that would make the average person buying meat from them absolutely sick. They treat animals not as animals, but as meat on legs. It extends beyond that too - cruel transportation practices are a problem. For instance, some animals spend weeks in transit in searing heat, unable to eat or drink regularly, unable to lie down or sit, standing in piles of their own waste before they are slaughtered. Their final hours are unbearable. Watching videos of pigs screaming in fear, horses wide eyed with panic, sheep and chickens falling over with exhaustion upon reaching their final destination - it's really fucking harsh and something that I'm amazed that any human being is actually physically able to oversee. That's a related issue to the subject of intensive farming, though also one worth mentioning I think.

So yeah... in conclusion... the farm you worked for sounds like a good farm. If you're interested in learning more about what I'm talking about, there are plenty of websites you can read and look at pictures. It's really horrific and unfortunately incredibly commonplace, so the more awareness is raised about it and people can make informed decisions, the better. Even if your decision is, as is so many other peoples in this thread, to continue buying the meat from abused animals (and really, no matter what your stance on the subject, these animals are abused).

If people treated cats or dogs in the same way as they treat intensively farmed chickens and pigs - and pigs for instance have the same level of intelligence and awareness as a dog or cat - then they would be charged with animal abuse and everyone would look down on them as being disgusting, cruel and evil people. But I guess for animals less cute or less commonly considered as pets or companions it's okay, eh?

even if I now hate half of you for your views

I'm afraid that you're working against your own cause.

Authors of such tirades always come off as a very self-righteous, judgemental person, quick to preach and quick to force your values on people. You think you're better than people who eat regular meat.
It's quite irritating, so people might start buying "intensive farmed", or whatever, food, just in spite.
I'm quite a sensitive fellow, yet your sermons made me crave a hamburger!

Whoa, check it out, there was a winky face there. Did you miss the winky face? It was a joke...

"You think you're better than people who eat regular meat"? Nice of you to try and second guess what I am thinking, but I'm afraid telling other people what you think they're thinking is adding nothing to the conversation...

"It's quite irritating, so people might start buying "intensive farmed", or whatever, food, just in spite. " -  Jeez Goldmund, you seem very upset. You think this thread is soley crafted simply to upset you. You also think that you should go make yourself a cup of tea and calm down for a while. You think perhaps you should reconsider your post, then try posting again when you have something valuable to add to the discussion. You think I'm really attractive and cool. You think you should probably send me money, but then you change your mind and think, no, instead you'll spend that money on buying free range meat from now on. You feel pleased with yourself for coming up with this idea.

You also realise that of course when people feel strongly about something they're going to be eager to discuss it with others, and that is all part of people having their own opinion and discussing it on the internet. You understand that when people discuss things that they have a lot of belief in, and the arguments become heated, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are self-righteous and judgemental. You feel a bit silly about your post now.

You apologise to me and I accept your apology.

[Trihan]

Oh, and I really do detest making serious points in arguments when I am quite sure that nobody's opinion is going to be swayed by my point, but anyone who comes in here citing the money reason makes me shake my head. Posting on here means you have access to a computer and internet, which costs money. Most of you have televisions, telephones and that sort of thing. Saying that you really *do* care about animal's feelings, but can't/won't afford to do so is basically saying that you care more about having luxury items than you do about the wellbeing of another living creature, which is a very sad thing to say in my opinion.

[EDIT]
Man, did I really write that much crap? How embarrassing 

Let me summarise four paragraphs of absolute toilet in 3 concise sentences:
Some people, myself included do live on a budget. I personally don't have a hell of a lot in the way of luxuries and those I do have are nearly always hand-me-downs or gifts. I have to try to budget in everything I do and this includes my choice in meat.

I've been unemployed for four months since being made redundant, I have very little money indeed. In fact I have none, not enough to pay my rent myself this month. I wasn't even earning much when I was employed, and I live in one of the priciest locations in England.

I still haven't bought a single piece of non free-range meat. Sure, I've bought less meat because I can't afford it as much, but I've also bought less luxuries such as wine, or nice toilet tissue instead of cheap stuff. I'm living on a budget, both me and my partner were made redundant at the same time so we have no income at all except our savings. Still we've made sure that we either choose free range, or we don't choose meat at all. And my partner loves meat.

And when I was growing up I lived on hand-me-downs too mate.

Trihan

If more people buy free-range, do you really think the farmers are going to have a change of heart and stop intensive farming altogether? As long as there's demand for it they'll continue to supply, in exactly the same way they've been supplying. And what's to stop them from -saying- they're free-range just so that they won't lose business? (I don't know much about the farming industry, maybe this would be harder than I think)

So okay, you've convinced more people to eat free-range, and given a few animals a better quality of life before they're slaughtered and processed for food.

It's not about having a 'change of heart'. Of course they won't, but if supply and demand is making the demand for free-range higher, this will support the free-range farmers or encourage others to go free-range. Then as you say - more animals will have a better quality of life before they're slaughtered. Don't you think this is worthwhile?

As for what the farmers think... bah! Some kind of intensive chicken farming was outlawed in Britain recently, or is planning to be outphased. Not sure of the details but it was on the news a while back, and I remember some chicken farmer being interviewed. The news showed the chickens in appalling conditions, really really disgusting... you wouldn't eat one if you saw one, honestly, for fear of catching some kind of disease. And the farmer was interviewed... he made up some absolute bullcrap about how the chickens didn't mind it. I can't remember his exact wording but I was watching the TV with a friend and we were both astounded at how brilliantly he was lying to himself. I mean even the hardest hearted person couldn't have been angered or upset at seeing those chickens.

In other news - sorry I got so nettled in the first half of the thread, I really wasn't expecting everyone to have what I consider to be such a disappointing viewpoint. I'm glad we're all discussing intelligently now, it makes for an awesome thread... even if I now hate half of you for your views

DISCLAIMER: The last bit was a joke! I don't hate anyone! It was a joke because there's been so much heated debate! Yay! It was irony? Get it? I am actually really enjoying having an intelligent debate where people aren't flaming each other! I guess I shouldn't have expected the kind of people who buy intensively farmed meat to get irony though. Whoa it was an ironic joke again, get it? ! I'm not being serious.

The packet was still going to be there, and someone was still going to buy it if I didn't.

Just because it's already on the shelf doesn't mean you can't make a difference. I once knew someone who was vegetarian EXCEPT for when they ate at restaurants... Her logic was, "The animal is already dead, they've already bought it so what difference does it make?" But of course that's exactly the same logic as is behind your "the packet was still there and someone was going to buy it if I didn't"

As has been said numerous times, if more people bought free-range, the supermarket would stock more free-range and less intensively farmed meat, so the packet you randomly pick up might be free-range. It would also increase the number of free range animals compared to non free range.

So don't have a defeatist attitude every little helps

I'm surprised it doesn't say on the packets though... everywhere I've shopped it has said. If it doesn't say anything that suggests to me that it is not free range because otherwise they'd very proudly display it on the packaging. I wish some kind of legislation would come into place that meant everyone had to give some description of where the meat is from and how it's farmed... even just because I find it quite horrible not knowing. As other people have said on this thread, and another reason I would never eat intensively farmed meat... it can be quite disgusting, disease ridden etc. I've seen conditions of turkeys farrmed this way first hand... it stinks (literally) and they were covered in lice and all sorts of euguhh, it makes my skin crawl just thinking about it. It would be great if more information HAD to be displayed about the meat on the packaging... I think it's quite important. Remember BSE? Didn't that start with cows being fed their own brethren as cheap food?

Does anyone know if they currently have to display whether it's British meat or not, etc?


Ben + Zooty.... yay! I had an evil guinea fowl that hid in a cherry tree, waited for me to walk past, and then flew into my face EVERY SINGLE DAY.