Childhood indoctrination

[KichigaiNeko]

He also says that two thirds of cattle in Australia are fed solely on pasture, but then cites this link: http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets...Lotfeeding which actually says that feedlot utilisation is at 67%! So the link tells us the exact opposite of what he said.

Ummm two thirds= 66%

I guess he doesn't expect people to check his sources? Speaking of which, the sources he provides seem to be opinion pieces posted by his mates, as well as a biased study done by PG Williams, who seems to examine meat composition only according to nutrients that meat is high in (eg protein). He fails to take into account the basic fact that proteins denature when heated to high temperatures (based on high school biology), and in fact tries to claim that cooked meat has a higher protein content because the water content has decreased. This is as silly as suggesting that pouring a cup of water on a steak will reduce its protein content. Why do all these articles use protein content as the baseline? This is another bias, since protein is in no way a limiting nutrient. If we want to be unbiased, we should use total calories, as this is the standard against which other nutrients are measured. We can then talk about protein and vitamins as a percentage of total calories, as is the standard.

All food "denatures" if left to storage and transport, losing vital nutrients.

And yes, the article you posted makes the ridiculous claim that we would need "more" land degradation to cater to vegans, even though we could just use the land in high rainfall areas currently being squandered on prime beef and dairy production.

I did point out to you that here in Oz the majority of our arable land in high rainfall zones is paved an houses our population.

I will come back and respond to some of your other claims soon, but in the meantime here is an independent review into different stunning methods, and it can be seen that none of them give consistently reliable stuns, hence the "quick clean kill" idea of yours is mostly fantasy unless you can ensure it yourself: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/45.pdf Page 9 shows that even the best case scenario (captive bolt stunning) has a 4% failure rate. The other methods (CO2, electrical) are even worse.

Only 4%? That's pretty good really. I am also to assume that you don't hunt and live in an urban area? Just asking.

[littleendian]

And yes, the article you posted makes the ridiculous claim that we would need "more" land degradation to cater to vegans, even though we could just use the land in high rainfall areas currently being squandered on prime beef and dairy production.

I did point out to you that here in Oz the majority of our arable land in high rainfall zones is paved an houses our population.

This might be true, but this land is then neither available to animal agriculture nor to crop production, therefore it doesn't enter into the equation. The question should be: What is the best use of the remaining fertile land?

Only 4%? That's pretty good really.

The 4% failure rate is only "good" as long as you don't allow yourself to have any empathy with the 4 out of 100 animals that are very much aware of their body being "processed", as the industry calls it. Anyone who allows him/herself the tiniest amount of compassion will find this figure unacceptable.

But even aside from slaughter, there is no ethical way to produce dairy products, because it always requires to tear away a calf from his/her mother and put it into a box where the baby screams its lungs out for Mom day and night. Cattle are mammals and herd animals just like us. Any mother will acknowledge how traumatizing this must be for mother and child, and there is no happy ending for either.

I am also to assume that you don't hunt and live in an urban area? Just asking.

Ad hominem, doesn't relate to the argument. I'm not stereotyping you as the "enemy", kindly return me the favor.

[Forbinator]

He also says that two thirds of cattle in Australia are fed solely on pasture, but then cites this link: http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets...Lotfeeding which actually says that feedlot utilisation is at 67%! So the link tells us the exact opposite of what he said.

Ummm two thirds= 66%

If two thirds of cattle in Australia are fed solely on pasture, then feedlot utilisation should be 33%, not 67% as stated by MLA. I can't tell if your problem is reading comprehension or mathematics, or perhaps you deliberately misread facts to suit yourself.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ummm two thirds= 66%

If two thirds of cattle in Australia are fed solely on pasture, then feedlot utilisation should be 33%, not 67% as stated by MLA. I can't tell if your problem is reading comprehension or mathematics, or perhaps you deliberately misread facts to suit yourself.

Perhaps your insults are an indication that you don't have an argument?

Perhaps you are talking around in circles and perhaps you have no idea other than what you are force-fed regarding the cattle industry here in Australia? Perhaps I did read the article wrong but as I inferred, that article is nearly three years old and could be inaccurate.

And I am to understand that all our cattle go to fed-lot prior to transport not just the paltry 67% mentioned as most farms are no where near any of the country's abattoirs.

And yes I am rather ignorant of the whole cattle industry here in Australia but I fail to see how joining a religion that seems determined to kill off a part of our population and that insists that feral animals are a much better solution than our native ones is one that I would want to subscribe to.

---

So what is wrong with this link?
http://www.mla.com.au/Prices-and-markets...Lotfeeding

Lotfeeding
You are here: Home / Prices & markets / Trends and analysis / Beef / Lotfeeding
The Australian Lot Feeders' Association (ALFA) and MLA conduct a quarterly lotfeeding survey to monitor trends in the lotfeeding sector.

Key findings from the survey included:

The number of cattle on feed during the March quarter increased 6% year-on-year and 1% on the December quarter, to 799,034 head.
Cattle turnoff in the first quarter of 2013 increased 4% year-on-year, to 615,362 head, with Victoria and SA registering declines, while the remaining states recorded an increase. Feedlot utilisation levels also rose from the corresponding period in 2012, to average 67% nationally.
Australian grainfed beef exports to Japan fell slightly during the March quarter, down 2% from year ago volumes, to 28,105 tonnes swt.
Over the March quarter feed grain prices increased significantly, with barley ($A285/tonne), sorghum (A$258/tonnes) and wheat ($A282/tonne) prices in the Darling Downs up 52%, 48% and 45% respectively, year-on-year.

---

Why do you want to eat sorghum, Barley and Wheat grains?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

What about artificial meat, grown in vats?

Also, what about mealworms? They contain a lot more protein pound for pound than 'meat', and are also a lot easier to grown and cull.

There is some anecdotal evidence that as sustainability for meat standard cattle farming becomes an issue, the harvesting of insects will replace it as the dominant food source. Interesting idea.

[Forbinator]

I suppose the occasions where "livestock are capable of processing commodities which we are not" depends mostly on the soil type in a given region, and whether it can support fast crop growth?

You suppose? You mean to say you have no agricultural/ pastoral/ horticultural knowledge? You DO realise that the majority of our cities are built upon arable land?

"suppose" refers to whether the statement was relevant to what was being said at the time, and not to uncertainty over its accuracy, if you must nitpick over semantics.

I would still suggest that if the areas that can support crop growth were all used for that purpose, with the resulting food fed to humans (not farmed animals) the extra food would mean we would no longer have the need to exploit animals in the regions that can't support efficient crop growth.

I really do think this is romantic nonsense Forbi. You are still disassociating animals from food crops and thinking that they exists in isolation from each other.

I may be guilty of idealism, but even if this ideal is not completely realised, shouldn't any positive steps towards it be celebrated? If even one dairy farm converts to cropping, that's a great thing, for the animals and probably for business! Dairy farmers are exploited and ripped off by the industry in much the same way as sweatshop workers. The solution for us is a boycott.

I acknowledge that your economic explanation realistically indicates why such wholesale changes to our food system are unlikely as long as we have a monetary system, but I still don't accept that we can justify harming animals on purely economic grounds.

Harming? In what way? Have you ever hunted?

You don't think that killing is a form of harm? And to answer the pointless question, I was once taken fishing when I was 12. It was an ugly experience, both for me and for the creatures being harmed for a few minutes of pleasure.

If there were instances of humans being farmed, we wouldn't even mention economics; we would be outraged and want to shut them down.

Are you sure about that? Are you not being "farmed"? To think/ behave a certain way? And what if these "farmed humans kept us fed as our only source of food? Are your ready to stop eating all together?

I've heard that argument, that in a way we're really all slaves, being farmed to some extent, in a figurative way. I think we should deal with who is literally being farmed, otherwise we're just making excuses and nothing really changes. And no, I won't stop eating altogether. I will make every reasonable effort to eat without harming others, to the extent that it is possible to do so given what is available. The point is, if the farming does harm, and is not needed, we cannot justify it. You seem to be the one with the inconsistency between which species' interests you value. I abhor immigration detention centres and dairy farms equally.

The issue with most responses to this thread is that no-one has really addressed the characteristics of farmed animals (when compared to humans) that make it morally permissible to harm them.

So you are a farmer? have you actually lived on a farm?

No. Yes. Ad hominem. And you didn't actually address the point you quoted.

It seems like something that has been hard-wired into us from a young age, but we don't know why, and certainly no-one can articulate it (childhood indoctrination, if you will).

Yes it is...that age is called the Pleistocene { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene } epoch, further refined in the Paleolithic { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic } it really has nothing to do with this romanticised "childhood indoctrination" you keep banging on about mainly because if it did then you would not prefer a vegan/ vegetarian diet now would you?

Those links show evidence of humans historically consuming meat. The second link also mentioned that infanticide was common. Does this mean that I can start murdering babies and just say that my evolution made me do it?

As far as additional soil fertility goes, I was under the impression that crop rotation was a strategy used to mitigate soil erosion, and also to restore nutrients back into the soil (by leaving the stalks or other remains of plant material behind).

As with most things the "impression" is not the full story and you are misinformed. I understand Rhythm has given you a more in-depth introduction into soil fertility above.

Yes he has. Fertiliser seems to be a complex issue, and different methods will apply in different situations. The fact that we need it in such high levels (for both animal agriculture and cropping) is symptomatic of human overpopulation. So hey, let's kill the animals! (I hope you can see that is an obvious non-sequitor).

Your bacon anecdote demonstrates that bacon contains nutrients that humans need. It does NOT indicate that these nutrients are unavailable in elsewhere, or that flesh products are necessary.

Oh? How? This relative (in law) was indoctrinated as a vegan/ vegetarian.

This extensively researched, independent report tells you in detail how to get all the nutrients you need from plant-based sources, including the nutrients that are thought to be scarce: http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2003_ADA_po..._paper.pdf

It certainly is possible to be deficient in certain nutrients as a vegan, if you eat too much junkfood, or predominantly consume processed fake animal products (like vegan cheese, mock meat etc.), in much the same way as you'll see meat and dairy eaters who need to take a calcium supplement. It's amazing how many nutrients you can get through leafy greens (kale, spinach, silver beet, bok choi etc.).

I don't believe that veganism is a panacea at all, and you seem intent on building this straw man.

Then why this seemingly desperate "need" for such emotive verbiage?

The slaughter of the innocent is a very emotive topic, especially since we don't need to do it, and we can very easily choose not to.

If we want to strive for some ideal of "world peace", or whatever you would want to call it, veganism would be necessary but not sufficient.

Peace? Who's idea of peace are you advocating?

Good question. I don't think anyone knows exactly what world peace means. That's why it is considered an ideal. Whatever it is, non-violence is certainly a more tangible and measurable goal to work towards.

I see it as a moral baseline. We have an obligation not to commit overt harm to others unless there is a damn good reason. From this baseline of not doing overt harm, we can strive as much as we reasonably can to reduce the covert harm that we do, such as by using too much electricity, and by emitting harmful chemicals into the environment.

You do realise we are only using this platitude so as to ensure our own survival don't you?

According to whom? Is our species in any serious danger of going extinct any time soon?

I acknowledge that there is no such thing as a meal (or other product) that does no harm, and we all have a "footprint" on this earth, but by promoting and supporting direct violence against animals you seem to be taking the position that because we can't eliminate harm, we shouldn't bother with ethics at all.

I really don't understand where you are coming from...you are sounding rather religious in you thinking and blindly romantic. So far you have not produced any "ethics" that anyone can follow. You are still toying with the idea and are yet to present anything concrete in a way to proceed in food security.

I'm saying that an "all or nothing" approach is flawed. You were apparently a "vegan" at some point, but because you perceive that you can't get all the nutrients via plant-based sources, you've become a full-on meat eater, advocating live export, mulesing, and mass killing of native kangaroos in full view of each other. Did you even make an effort to find middle ground? Maybe only eating animal products on Sundays for example?

You should also know that I'm not trying to be "superior" or set myself "above" anyone else. It would be counter-productive at any rate, since what I want is for as many people to go vegan as possible.

Ah...so instead of "childhood indoctrination" you are trying to implement "pseudo-religious-childhood-indoctrination" Sorry mate but we are omnivores and the best you can hope for is that the planet will increase it's vegetable intake (at great cost to living space) and minimalise it's meat intake (where range land is desolate and unproductive)

I'm not trying to implement it; I'm trying to dismantle it. The childhood indoctrination phenomenon that I've referred to is better explained here: http://www.carnism.org

Oh? You live in Australia?

Yes, so I know about rangeland beef production, and I also know that it is fraudulent to suggest that all grass-fed beef comes from rangelands, particularly in the case of prime beef.

You could use the same logic to accuse anyone who takes an ethical stance of "elitism", am I right?

Only when they are taking the moral high ground and trying to shove their "ethics" down mine and my children's throats

And what kind of elitism involves forcing innocent animals to die for your ethics? I have not used force.

You have said this before, but have been unable to explain why it can be justified for a pig or a cow, but not for a human.

I support voluntary Euthanasia. Do you?

Yes. But slaughter is neither voluntary nor for the purpose of relieving suffering. You're still dodging the question you quoted.

You also cannot get past the fact that the "clean, quick" kill is not realistic in practice.

Ahh, you have never hunted for your food then?

Of course hunters are all highly skilled enough to hit a moving target between the eyes first shot every time...even the ones who've had a six-pack of beer and allowed their children to "have a try" with the gun. How silly of me not to think of that! And if you are actually that good with a gun, how many unclean "practice" kills did it take for you to get that good?

Usually they are killed in view of other animals, and can smell the blood and fear. Basically, the fact that they don't wilfully stroll into the slaughterhouse of their own accord (and need to be forced in/beaten with a stick) precludes your idea of the "perfect" kill with no suffering.

You have been watching videos of halal and kosher slaughter have you? I must concur that this "processing" is unacceptable.

These qualities are not unique to halal and kosher.

---

Usually they are killed in view of other animals, and can smell the blood and fear. Basically, the fact that they don't wilfully stroll into the slaughterhouse of their own accord (and need to be forced in/beaten with a stick) precludes your idea of the "perfect" kill with no suffering.

My father raises beef cattle. So I grew up working with the dumb brutes.

You have to force a cow to go through a cattle chute so they can get shots that will stave off disease and parasites too. Once they get the shots they are immediately released back into the pasture.

I've spent many a day beating on a cow's rear end with a stick so they can get the medicine they need to improve their health and well-being.

This is the problem. It doesn't matter how highly the cattle industry rates its welfare standards; they still have to beat their animals. The industry is fundamentally flawed.

As for the medicine and vaccines you give, they are for disease states that you've caused by intensive confinement. The pathogenic load on a farm is very high. It's the same principle as children getting sick at childcare centres. You treating the diseases is a bit like shooting someone and then driving him to the hospital (given the choice it's still preferable to drive him to the hospital though).

[KichigaiNeko]

TLR

See you at the polls come the 14th September

---

Oh and let me know how the feral Fox and Rabbit infestations are going mate.

[festive1]

That may be the longest post ever. I skimmed, but you lost me when you seemingly equate the practice of infanticide with eating animals...
People practice/d infanticide because they can't/couldn't bear the burden of caring for the infant or the infant has/had some defect. People eat/ate animals as a food source. Very different... Shouldn't be equated.

[KichigaiNeko]

Finally got to read some of it.

So you are a card carrying Animals Australia advocate who is nothing but a latte sipping urbanite from Melbourne who is taking vegan/ vegetarianism into politics and corrupting it to bring down a billion dollar export industry at a time when Australia needs every export dollar it can muster? Well done.

You sir are what is wrong with this country. Safe in your urban environment, immune to the water rations and devastation wrought by drought , complaining bitterly that the Government Services have to cut fire breaks to save homes and people and livestock during the Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday fires, happy to see our indigenous population suffer and remain in poverty because YOU don't like the fact that they have found a way to be who they are mustering and running a cattle station for export livestock which enables them to contribute and be a part of the mainstream Australian economy.

YOUR ethics disgust me! How DARE you demean the countless vegan/ vegetarians who chose this life-style for medical or personal preference. How DARE you politicise this choice that would see billions of dollars wiped off our GDP. No. YOU are a political animal and as such will find your answer from the Australian people in September.

It has NEVER occurred to you that IF people could have sown crops in this tiny little spot know as "the Gippsland" they would have done so, instead of turning into pasture land? Has it occurred to you that IF you feel so anxious to obtain vegetarian nirvana that perhaps you might consider creating your own garden? And don't give me that pathetic whine that you live in an apartment block...our own Summer Queen lives in similar conditions and is able to supplement her vegetable stock with balcony planting and she has a much shorter growing cycle than we do here in Australia.

---

Humans are fundamentally flawed and so is life in general.

Are you going to insist that you live in your little bubble of nirvana? Or are you going to get out and see the real world and stop being fed a myth? Are you content to swallow second hand information or are you going to get off that fat behind of yours (metaphorically speaking) and go and see for yourself just what happens?

[Forbinator]

That may be the longest post ever. I skimmed, but you lost me when you seemingly equate the practice of infanticide with eating animals...
People practice/d infanticide because they can't/couldn't bear the burden of caring for the infant or the infant has/had some defect. People eat/ate animals as a food source. Very different... Shouldn't be equated.

Fair enough. I was only making the comparison to show the absurdity of using links to the Paleolithic epoch to justify slaughtering the innocent today. I guess I could have chosen any number of behaviours that took place back then which would not be justifiable now. Summary: I was trying to show logical equivalence, not moral equivalence between the two acts.

Kichigai is building strawmen faster than I can take them down at the moment, and I seem to be making him angry, so it's probably best if I take a break for a while. I hope I have at least helped to change the way some people think about the choices they make. I will still answer PMs.