Circumstances in which animals get bred to become our food

• TA wrote on 2011-08-03 00:57

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;535456:

  If people would reduce the meat consumption to appropriate levels, quite probably. If they don't, then obviously not.
  

  [Image: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YldhY2H2N-U/TU7SRpybsGI/AAAAAAAAA70/3trXBWjQuq8/s1600/Blobby+Britain01.jpg]

  
  Those people don't need anywhere near as much food as they consume, surely including loads and loads of meat.

  
  
  That honestly looks more like sugary and greasy foods than meat.
  
  

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;535456:

  Uhm, I hope you're aware that those animals that get slaughtered already are being sustained with agricultural products, and I'd bet five hypothetical monthly wages that this process is much more energy inefficient than just eating it directly.

  
  
  Find some kind of source on that because I highly doubt it.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-08-03 01:34

  Quote from TA;535503:

  That honestly looks more like sugary and greasy foods than meat.
  
  Find some kind of source on that because I highly doubt it.

  
  To me it looks like too much of everything, but I only took a random picture of random fat people on the web anyway.
  
  Unless you're suggesting that the cattle has a 100% nutrient intake efficiency there really is no way to avoid nutrient loss, and the manure from mass husbandry is so much that you can't actually use it all as fertilizer because the soil couldn't handle it (thus: nutrient loss, since you can't even give all the rest back to the soil).
  Simple maths.
• Kazuni wrote on 2011-08-03 01:54

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;535547:

  To me it looks like too much of everything, but I only took a random picture of random fat people on the web anyway.
  
  Unless you're suggesting that the cattle has a 100% nutrient intake efficiency there really is no way to avoid nutrient loss, and the manure from mass husbandry is so much that you can't actually use it all as fertilizer because the soil couldn't handle it (thus: nutrient loss, since you can't even give all the rest back to the soil).
  Simple maths.

  
  
  Except you can eat a certain sized piece of meat, but probably not the amount of grain/etc that went into it.
• Chillax wrote on 2011-08-03 01:59

  Quote from TA;535503:

  Find some kind of source on that because I highly doubt it.

  
  
  Insert trophic pyramid here.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-08-03 02:17

  Quote from Kazuni;535581:

  Except you can eat a certain sized piece of meat, but probably not the amount of grain/etc that went into it.

  
  ...what do you want to express?
• Kazuni wrote on 2011-08-03 03:42

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;535657:

  ...what do you want to express?

  
  
  It does lose nutrients, but it's still very effective compared to how much you'd have to eat in terms of .. well, potential cow/chicken fodder...
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-08-03 07:40

  Quote from Kazuni;535837:

  It does lose nutrients, but it's still very effective compared to how much you'd have to eat in terms of .. well, potential cow/chicken fodder...

  
  Heh, if we're just talking energy I'm sure a vegetable rich diet could get you all you need, unless you've got a hobby or job with a high energy/protein demand such as body building or mining.
  
  I didn't really argue in favour of complete abstinence anyway, I've argued in favour of less animal cruelty and mass husbandry and ergo reduced overall meat consumption (which wouldn't be bad at all, we only really need it for like two essential amino acids or what it was). Considering how much meat we consume that wouldn't even pose a health risk.
• Kazuni wrote on 2011-08-03 07:42

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;536312:

  Heh, if we're just talking energy I'm sure a vegetable rich diet could get you all you need, unless you've got a hobby or job with a high energy/protein demand such as body building or mining.
  
  I didn't really argue in favour of complete abstinence anyway, I've argued in favour of less animal cruelty and mass husbandry and ergo reduced overall meat consumption (which wouldn't be bad at all, we only really need it for like two essential amino acids or what it was). Considering how much meat we consume that wouldn't even pose a health risk.

  
  
  Like said before, it's very difficult to use space efficiently when raising animals, especially if you're going to cater to their needs properly. More demand would fall on vegetables, crops, etc, and we wouldn't have enough space for that either.
  
  Imo, when it comes down to it, this kind of treatment, while unkind, is kind of necessary for human comfort.
• Kollin wrote on 2011-08-03 07:56
  as long as the factory is working under adequate sanitary conditions i dont care. its going to end up dead and in my stomach anyway, theres no possible way "to make the chickens feel better" about that. if i was a self-aware being whose sole purpose was for slaughter, it wouldnt matter if you put me on a comfy cushion in a 5-star hotel or locked me in the cage, i still wouldnt be happy as its only temporary and in a few days or so im going to be dead.
• Chillax wrote on 2011-08-03 09:20

  Quote from Kazuni;536322:

  Like said before, it's very difficult to use space efficiently when raising animals, especially if you're going to cater to their needs properly. More demand would fall on vegetables, crops, etc, and we wouldn't have enough space for that either.
  
  Imo, when it comes down to it, this kind of treatment, while unkind, is kind of necessary for human comfort.

  
  
  That's why if we decrease meat consumption, there will be more space to raise plants where feed for animals was grown. This will also provide more space for free range livestock. You can read in any rudimentary Biology textbook about how biomass (energy) decreases dramatically for each trophic level and that a lot of nutrients are lost along the way due to growth, respiration, and homeostasis, making eating animals much less efficient than eating plants. Space isn't really a problem, especially since plants won't be affected as much if they're in cramped places. Greenhouses and hydroponics are relatively effective ways to raise plants when they're not planted in open fields, and marijuana growers can tell you how effective hydroponics are in growing marijuana in a confined space.
  
  Yes, this treatment is needed for human greed and comfort. We want the best of both worlds as omnivores, but we run into these problems as a consequence. I love meat, and I would despise living as a vegetarian or vegan, but it's a lie to say eating animals is nearly as efficient as eating plants.
• Einyaki wrote on 2011-08-12 22:26
  back in the Philippines we would always go for a vacation at my grandparents house who breed poultry and livestock. Whats so messed up about it is the fact that we laughed our asses off and cheering while they kill the pigs. we were still young back then though. what they would do was get a large log and just bash away at the head. slowly deforming it. That didnt stop us from eating it.
  
  EDIT: by "us" i meant me and my cousins.