Animal Welfare

[gembird]

I know there are similar topics to this one in Debates, but they're all either very old (about three or four years) or not exactly what I'm thinking of. Anyway. As a student of animal biology, including health issues of domestic animals, this subject is very close to my heart. Something has happened in my practicals this week which has brought this very much to the forefront of my mind, and I wanted to get people's views on it.

I'm doing an animal behaviour module at the moment, and today we had to observe feeding behaviour in chicks. Now, I thought this would be something reasonably simple, such as watching them to see how they react to food in a bowl and food hidden around their enclosure which they have to find. What actually happened was that the heating was left off from last night in the labs, and pairs of three-day-old chicks were placed in boxes with just some newspaper on the floor and small dishes of food and water. After we watched them huddle together to keep warm, we left them under a lamp for 20 minutes and watched their activity again- this was nowhere near enough time for them to really warm up, and we were told this by the demonstrator. It turns out that this meant our experiment was useless as the results were not reliable- the chicks were still very cold and their behaviour wouldn't change. So not only were we doing an experiment that had already been done, but the animals were suffering and the unreliable results made it even more pointless.

Later on the chicks will be gassed to death as they are no longer needed. There was no way any of us could set them free as they are so young and none of us know how to look after them properly. As they are male chicks, they cannot be sent to a farm to become part of a flock; obviously they don't lay eggs and there are too many of them to keep in the university farms as the cockerels for breeding when they grow up. I feel that even if they were fattened for meat, this is something that happens to chickens anyway and they would not be wasted lives- maybe this is me being a bit stupid, but I think breeding animals just to poke them around a bit before killing them is horrendous.

Like I said, I'm a biology student, so I have done dissections in the past. This makes it difficult for me to decide where I stand on the issue of animal welfare in these circumstances- I have very definite views on welfare when it comes to domestic animals, zoo animals and 'proper' animal testing where surgical techniques and/or chemicals are used. To some extent, I can justify dissections as some people from those classes will go on to become specialists and discover things they would never know without that practical knowledge of anatomy. They might even discover something that helps other animals to live. But today's experiment can't be justified in my mind- it was pointless, unnecessary and cruel. The only use it had was to prove to a class that experiments don't always work, and I believe that it is wrong to use animals to prove a point like that as they are aware of their surroundings and suffer like we do. In this situation, they were suffering for no reason, and now they are being killed; I almost think of them as having wasted lives.

Sorry this post is so long- it needs a fair bit of background detail. So what are people's opinions on this? Where do we draw the line and say, "This may be cruel, but it is necessary if we want to help ourselves and other species- that is also cruel, and we should not do it because there is no need for it."

Thoughts please.

[Pie hunter D]

I'm not sure I really understand the point in watching how the chicks behave... If it's been studied before it would be no different to watching a film in sociology (Lets face it, it's basically animal sociology). Ok theres the element of saying "Woo look how clever they are! They found food!" d'uh! It's natural instinct. Any common schmuck with their finger embeded in their nose up to the bloody knuckle could tell you that. So saying, I don't agree with it. It's basically a pointless controlled experiment.
The fact that they're allowed to live as long as they yeild results is just fucking appauling. I'm no stranger to life nor am I jaded in any way about these matters, but seriously... Why? Life is life , be it human or chick.
I thought it was sad enough when the sims came along allowing you to play god with little characters, then big brother ( who the fuck wants to sit in their living room watching other people sit in their living room?!), then someone decides to validate the act in the name of science. It's just plain old fucked up.... and it makes me quite sick to be frank.
Disections are very different, the experience you get in hands on work and knowing exactly what you're looking at helps a lot more than any textbook ever will, this I also know from biology.

Not cool, not cool at all.

[gembird]

I'm not sure I really understand the point in watching how the chicks behave... If it's been studied before it would be no different to watching a film in sociology (Lets face it, it's basically animal sociology). Ok theres the element of saying "Woo look how clever they are! They found food!" d'uh! It's natural instinct. Any common schmuck with their finger embeded in their nose up to the bloody knuckle could tell you that. So saying, I don't agree with it. It's basically a pointless controlled experiment.

This is the thing- they didn't even go anywhere near the food because they were so cold. All they did was cuddle up to each other and try to go to sleep. I'm not a sentimental person but I actually wanted to cry because I felt so upset and angry about it- the sheer pointlessness of the whole thing got to me for so many reasons, and the demonstrator just didn't seem to give a shit.

[Pie hunter D]

It's called "Proffessionalism" The mantle you wear when you feel like being a cold hearted bastard. I'd be pissed off too.
I'm not someone who generally takes everything to heart , but small things sometimes just make a difference, always the little things.

[katt]

i took a class where baby chicks were studied. They were so cute OMG; so fluffy and peepy.

Apparently in other classes tehy had to be sacrificed and the guys would have to do it because most of the girls didn't have the heart. I know i wouldn't be able to it would make me cry :(

But sometimes animals are sacrificed so people can learn. or try out medicines or whatever. i am not against animal testing for med reasons because i think humans are the most important.

I always preferred dissecting animals that had died of natural causes (like the preserved cats). But sometime they would kill fresh chickens/sheep/whatever or bring in minks that had been used for fur coats. But as long as i didnt see them alive i wasnt upset

edit: also i believe most male chicks are killed anyway in the process of egg production. They put them in plastic bags and let them suffocate to death which is pretty heartless. So maybe those chicks were destined for that sad fate anyway.

[bionic sheep]

Would you care about the animals used for testing if they weren't cute?

If it were shrimps you were studying, would you feel the same? What about insects? Rats? Fish?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to criticise you - it's completely natural to try to prevent the deaths of cute things - but this really seems like something of a non-issue.

[katt]

I think the chicks are particularly upsetting to many people because they are new life (that look so cute and fragile) and it seems like they should have more of a chance than they get sometimes.

There is bias about what animals people care about though. Unless you are like mary tyler moore and campaign against the cruelty of boiling lobsters alive. :) what an unbiased crusader she is

http://www.lobsterlib.com/index.html

[Sorcha]

How would you feel if you were put in a giant vat of scalding hot water and boiled to death? I guarantee you'd feel horrible pain as your skin boils off.

I am against cruelty to animals in all forms, I think we should think of animals in the same light that we think of humans. I have also done my fair share of biology at high school and university, and I have dissected many animals but I always conduct myself with respect and ensure that no animals have been caused irrational harm.

Just because we can't ask them if it hurts doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Even plants go into "shock" if you rip one of their leaves off!

I guess I'm a giant softie, but I even get upset when my cat kills a lizard... Mostly because I have to look at it's dead mangled body before throwing it back in the yard. :(

If you equate everything we do to animals in human terms, and try to empathizes with what the pain must feel like, you'll soon realise that it is wrong to treat animals in such a way. De-clawing cats for instance - would you like it if someone pulled up all of your fingernails? I doubt it.

[katt]

Well unless you are a complete vegan I am sure there are some animals that have suffered on your behalf :)

I doubt cows that are butchered for steaks enjoyed being electrocuted for that purpose.

Animals should not be made to suffer but if you put them on level with humans then that would necessitate a converstion to veganism

and i recall in earlier threads you mentioned horses can be considered food (and kangaroos too)

[Sorcha]

I don't have a problem with humane killing. Ultimately we need to eat meat, but my opinion is that the standards do need to be raised.

[katt]

well, i do admit the treatment of the male baby chicks struck me as pretty unfeeling when i read about it. There must be a more humane way of killing them than putting them in a plastic bag to suffocate/crush them.

I am sure their little lives could be of use to somebody somewhere...

Maybe standards have been raised since i read that book.

[gembird]

Would you care about the animals used for testing if they weren't cute?

If it were shrimps you were studying, would you feel the same? What about insects? Rats? Fish?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to criticise you - it's completely natural to try to prevent the deaths of cute things - but this really seems like something of a non-issue.

Yes, I would care if they weren't cute. When you're studying various animals at degree level, it makes you realise just how advanced and intelligent they are. For example, it has been proved that fish feel pain. I eat meat, and I don't see that as an issue (if abbatoirs are abiding by regulations) as many animals are killed and eaten by others- it's just that we do it in a slightly different manner. I don't like that lobsters are boiled alive, and I hate it when people kill spiders. I don't care what it looks like, if something is suffering needlessly then it's wrong.

well, i do admit the treatment of the male baby chicks struck me as pretty unfeeling when i read about it. There must be a more humane way of killing them than putting them in a plastic bag to suffocate/crush them.

I am sure their little lives could be of use to somebody somewhere...

Maybe standards have been raised since i read that book.

The only use for a male chick is to be fattened up for meat, however because lots of picky people want their chicken to have lots of breast meat, they're less popular than female birds. I do think that for processed foods where you can't tell what the percentage of breast meat is, and for things like drumsticks, male birds are a perfectly reasonable substitute. I would be quite happy if the chicks were sent to be burgers- it sounds hypocritical, but as I said before, animals get eaten by each other whatever we do, so it's only natural for us to eat meat too (if we want to of course).

[bionic sheep]

To be honest, I can get on board with campaigns for better treatment of animals, but it's really not a priority for me.

Unnecessary suffering sucks, but there's a lot of human suffering in the world that we would probably be better off solving first.

I know this seems rather dismissive, but I just can't take the issue seriously; it's not that important to me, in the grand scheme of things, and it seems to detract from issues which are more obviously relevant.

The massive crusade recently about battery farming, for example, doesn't irritate me in terms of goals. I agree that battery farming is wrong. However, it does irritate me because a lot of effort seems to be put towards fixing something which really doesn't matter, especially when we consider all the other social injustices that are suffered every day by people all around us. Chickens just aren't that important to me.

[gembird]

I can understand that point of view, I'm not someone who puts animals above human welfare- regarding battery hens, I think making sure people have enough food which is cheap enough for them to afford is a priority, and that we need to find other ways of doing this before we start to sort out the battery situation.

However, as someone who is going to end up in a career which involves domestic animals, it's a lot more important to me than it is to lots of other people. I get to see more of what really happens to animals than a lot of other people my age, and not all of it is pleasant. I accept that bad things are happening to people too, but when I graduate it's much more likely that my job will be to improve an animal's quality of life than a human being's, at least directly, so this is something that I care about and have strong opinions on.

[Sorcha]

I think the problem of human suffering and animal suffering are intrinsically linked. As and example, as the middle classes in India and China grow, demand for more expensive meats (which is beef, better quality chicken and eggs, pork, lamb, etc) grows and there is the possibility that the cheapest and more convenient way of mass producing food stuffs (and not necessarily the most humane) way of feeding these people may become the norm.

This means that the few in lower classes who have the jobs who do the work to get this food to sell need to cut corners and so the cycle of poverty, high unemployment and animal cruelty continues. I don't believe it is possible to fix one problem by itself, both need to be addressed simultaneously.

[Giant_Crab]

Hmm, difficult one this. Is there really much point showing a flawed scientific method? Isn't that along the lines of starting a maths class with 'what you all need to know is that 2+2 does NOT equal eight?

[Pie hunter D]

Would you care about the animals used for testing if they weren't cute?

If it were shrimps you were studying, would you feel the same? What about insects? Rats? Fish?




...yes. Life is life.
I'm deffinately no far left hippie type but respect for all forms of live is something I believe in. Research for cures is one big cooking pot but something that's a necessary evil in my view. It just pisses me off when unnecessary measures are taken in the name of science to validate an already well known fact.

[Giant_Crab]

That I agree with. Ethics and sentimentality can never be mistaken for the same thing.

[gembird]

That's definitely true- I think the problem with the example I gave was that the animals just happened to be small and fluffy, which might have given the impression that I'm just some soft-hearted girlie girl who can't cope with thinking about animals dying. That's far from the case. When your field trips are all farm visits, you get to know what is cruelty and what isn't. For example, a lot of intensive farming of chickens isn't cruel- people just associate intensive with battery farms and assume that the birds are being treated badly. Same goes for a lot of animals that are being bred for meat, which is why I'm still a meat eater even though I feel so strongly about cruelty.

I have no problem with animals being killed for good reason- as food for another animal, fur used by people in very cold places to keep warm, even in science if it will be of benefit in the long run and there isn't an alternative. But for anything to die in an experiment that doesn't need to be done is wrong, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if it's cuddly or if it has four eyes and seven legs.

[katt]

.

Unnecessary suffering sucks, but there's a lot of human suffering in the world that we would probably be better off solving first.
.

Yeah I agree with that mentality entirely. Its almost...decadent...to spend great chunks of time campaigning for something like a lobster when there are hungry people being mistreated all over the globe.

Although that line of thought would not be considered valid by the people who think people are no better than lobsters. However i really have nothing further to say regarding them because i believe they are loopy.

I think isolated, unreasonable incidents of animal cruelty should be punished (neglect, intentional cruelty). However complaining about the uses animals have been put to in order to help people (through food, education or medicine) is a different matter.

edit: and btw i see nothing wrong with killing a spider. Who would want to sit in a room filled with the things

[gembird]

I think isolated, unreasonable incidents of animal cruelty should be punished (neglect, intentional cruelty). However complaining about the uses animals have been put to in order to help people (through food, education or medicine) is a different matter.

I don't think anyone in this thread has done that- not saying that's what you're implying, but I for one have expressly said that I'm okay with animals being used for food and so on.

But for anything to die in an experiment that doesn't need to be done is wrong, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if it's cuddly or if it has four eyes and seven legs.

I don't think many people can disagree with this to be honest. Fair enough if people are happy for other experiments to go ahead, I know some are necessary, but I'm talking about ones that really aren't.

[Pie hunter D]

But for anything to die in an experiment that doesn't need to be done is wrong, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if it's cuddly or if it has four eyes and seven legs.

Like a crippled half blind spider :eng101: Euthanasia is a different topic so I digress!



edit: and btw i see nothing wrong with killing a spider. Who would want to sit in a room filled with the things


(^,^)/

I love spiders, they catch and eat flies...which piss me off!

[katt]

I don't think anyone in this thread has done that- not saying that's what you're implying, but I for one have expressly said that I'm okay with animals being used for food and so on.

I know no one of that mentality has posted. I was thinking back to that peta group who want to try and make a lobster into a bigger deal than it is.


(^,^)/

I love spiders, they catch and eat flies...which piss me off!

I was reading about house centipedes recently and there is some debate as to whether its best to kill them or not as they kill other insects.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eV1Mk8wqJco <-the house centipede; god's gift to home owners

I find that mentality funny because those are the insects i'd MOST want gone if i was having a problem with them :P

I feel similarly about spiders although i think house centipedes are scarier

[Pie hunter D]

I know no one of that mentality has posted. I was thinking back to that peta group who want to try and make a lobster into a bigger deal than it is.




I was reading about house centipedes recently and there is some debate as to whether its best to kill them or not as they kill other insects.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eV1Mk8wqJco <-the house centipede; god's gift to home owners

I find that mentality funny because those are the insects i'd MOST want gone if i was having a problem with them :P

I feel similarly about spiders although i think house centipedes are scarier

Agreed with the centipedes...I never knew that though cheers! :)
Lobster I dunno, if it was a rare blue or something yeah it's something to make a deal about, if it was a resteraunt lobster...it's chow.

[malcolio]

Where do we draw the line and say, "This may be cruel, but it is necessary if we want to help ourselves and other species- that is also cruel, and we should not do it because there is no need for it."I think this is the crux of the problem. Where do you draw the line for how much cruelty you can inflict upon an animal, and for what reason?

I personally don't care. I eat meat because I like the taste, which means that an animal has to die for me to eat it. I don't care how that particular animal dies, as long as it's done safely so I don't get ill from eating it's remains. This is why the recent chicken battery palava doesn't bother me. Either way you're killing chickens, so for me the end result isn't effected by how it is achieved.

As for your original example, I wouldn't like chicks to be killed after having taken part in a pointless experiment, but that's only because those chicks could have been used for an experiment with a point, and that's just money wasted.

I think this mindset of mine gives me the same reason why I didn't care when I heard Heath Ledger died. I never met him, I was never going to, so his death signifys nothing to me. I feel bad about his daughter, but again, I'm never going to meet her, I will probably never hear of her again, so why feel bad about 1 out of 6 and a half billion people?

Anyway, back to my point. Finding a line between cruelty and nescessity is hard. As others have already pointed out, if you don't like causing cruelty to animals, surely you have to be a vegan to not be a hypocrite?
I have no problem with animals being killed for good reason- as food for another animal, fur used by people in very cold places to keep warm, even in science if it will be of benefit in the long run and there isn't an alternative. But for anything to die in an experiment that doesn't need to be done is wrong, plain and simple.How do you define what doesn't need to be done? You say animals dying for ruined experiments are a waste, what about all the animals that are killed across the world for the meat industry and then not eaten? Do animals really need to be killed for meat, or is that something that doesn't need to be done too?

I'm not having a go at you btw, I'm just taking your original question and running with it. Your above quote seems to be a good example of how it's difficult to draw a line.

I don't have a problem with humane killing. Ultimately we need to eat meatSame goes for this. You are against cruelty to animals in all forms......except when such animals gives you nice tasting food? Or is it that animals bred for food aren't suffering? That because the only reason they are alive is to be used as food, so you might as well eat them anyway? Again, I'm not trying to have a go at you, I'm just saying it's hard to draw a line, which is why I've gone with the whole 'don't-give-a-crap-at-all' way of thinking. Gives me less headaches.

[Darkscull]

You are against cruelty to animals in all forms......except when such animals gives you nice tasting food?

the word 'humane' was used, and as long as it's humane it's not cruelty. whether any farming/slaughtering practices are actually humane is the question there.

[Sorcha]

Yay for everyone ignoring my post about human vs animal suffering :(

I think the problem of human suffering and animal suffering are intrinsically linked. As and example, as the middle classes in India and China grow, demand for more expensive meats (which is beef, better quality chicken and eggs, pork, lamb, etc) grows and there is the possibility that the cheapest and more convenient way of mass producing food stuffs (and not necessarily the most humane) way of feeding these people may become the norm.

This means that the few in lower classes who have the jobs who do the work to get this food to sell need to cut corners and so the cycle of poverty, high unemployment and animal cruelty continues. I don't believe it is possible to fix one problem by itself, both need to be addressed simultaneously.

I think it's kinda hollow for people to say "well who cares about animals when there are people starving". We don't own the world, we have to share it, and being selective with your empathy defeats the point of feeling it in the first place.

[katt]

I think the problem of human suffering and animal suffering are intrinsically linked. As and example, as the middle classes in India and China grow, demand for more expensive meats (which is beef, better quality chicken and eggs, pork, lamb, etc) grows and there is the possibility that the cheapest and more convenient way of mass producing food stuffs (and not necessarily the most humane) way of feeding these people may become the norm.

This means that the few in lower classes who have the jobs who do the work to get this food to sell need to cut corners and so the cycle of poverty, high unemployment and animal cruelty continues. I don't believe it is possible to fix one problem by itself, both need to be addressed simultaneously.

.

basically you were saying (if i understood right as it was rather difficult to decipher what you were aiming at) "its horrible that people in developing countries cut corners to sell meat to each other for less expensive prices"

and your point was?

the fact meat is sold for cheap does not necessarily keep the people poor. correlation (between people eating cheap meat and poverty) does not imply causation (cheap meat causes povert or is strongly linked to it)



I think it's kinda hollow for people to say "well who cares about animals when there are people starving". We don't own the world, we have to share it, and being selective with your empathy defeats the point of feeling it in the first place

its a matter of priority. human beings matter more than a bunch of chickens and should take priority. which is obvious unless you are intentionally being controversial. Its not about not having empathy point blank but having empathy where it is most important.


and what the 'humane ways' of killing animals for food are is debateable. In the end it means an animal is going to lose its life and that is never sunshiney happiness. society (on the whole) has grown too soft from luxury i think. We have gone too far from our roots to understand basic things like 'a chicken has to have its head cut off to end up on the table for dinner'.

all we see are the plastic packages of meat in the store and none of the work behind it.

[Sorcha]

Once again you have completely misinterpreted what I have said - and demonised me - and I'm not going to try and explain it because I have better things to do.

[katt]

I already said what you were aiming at was not very clear and perhaps i did misunderstand. You were assuming ?? the people who run whatever meat industries china or india have are lower than the middle class but that might not be the case. in fact it probably is not

it could have been interpreted as

* middle class in india profits off of cheap labor of the underclass (which is somewhat of a separate issue from trying to lower the prices of meat by changing the standards in which the animals are kept. You can raise chicken the old fashioned way (using the more humane methods) and pay the employees low wages too; and in the end you will have much less meat to show for it than using new farming methods

* cheap production of meat to feed a developing country requires that the animals are treated poorly and if the people in the country were more affluent this would not be a problem

other things too.

and who is to say that the developing meat industries do not help the people by providing jobs? who knows. in one sentence you mentioned the jobs the lower classes would have in these meat industries AND unemployment which really made no sense to me.

Additionally I am sure even the less affluent benefit from having cheaper meat available! They might not be able to eat it as often as people with more money but it still probably helps them out.

[malcolio]

the word 'humane' was used, and as long as it's humane it's not cruelty. whether any farming/slaughtering practices are actually humane is the question there.Indeed, that sums up a point I was trying to make in a much more succinct way. :D Even if a cow/chicken/lamb whatever is looked after 'humanly', does this matter when it's sole existance is to be eaten? Using Scorcha's basic analogy here, would we like it if we spent out short lives kept in a pen, given regular food and water, only to be executed once we're fat enough? If we go into the 'all animals feel pain' debate, does that only include physical pain, but not mental?

Yay for everyone ignoring my post about human vs animal suffering :(If I'm honest I decided not to respond to your point because I couldn't quite understand it, due to your long sentence structure. I was going to ask if you could explain your view again...but after your rebuttal to katt's post I don't think I will...

[Sorcha]

The general gist of it is, if you don't have the necessary infrastructure to handle the complexities of fair paid employment for the lower classes involved in providing animal-based goods and food for the growing middle classes in developing countries it simply compounds the problem.

With corrupt governments and companies, there will always be short-cuts and ultimately people AND animals are going to suffer because of this.

Make sense now?

[katt]

so animals and people would not suffer under traditional (or 'non-cruel) farming methods that resulted in a small fraction of the output that modern farming methods do? Additionally perhaps the old methods would not be regulated as closely as a major industry would be.

The end result would be the same basically: the animals would be slaughtered and the farmers would get a meager income from them if they sold them. At least with modern farming you have an increase in the yield.

The workers farming the meat would likely be paid a pittance no matter how much output their input resulted in. Whether it was on a feeble backyard scale or in mass production.

At least going forward with higher-tech methods moves the country forward as a whole

[Sorcha]

I didn't even say anything about high-tech vs low-tech... :\

You're arguing with yourself, katt.

[katt]

animal suffering are intrinsically linked. As and example, as the middle classes in India and China grow, demand for more expensive meats (which is beef, better quality chicken and eggs, pork, lamb, etc) grows and there is the possibility that the cheapest and more convenient way of mass producing food stuffs (and not necessarily the most humane) way of feeding these people may become the norm.


heh MASS PRODUCTION of food (whether plant or animal) involves a higher level of technology than backyard farms. It was definitely implied by the nature of the subject matter

[Erasmus]

I think the point Sorcha is flailing towards is that in certain circumstances human suffering AND animal suffering can be alleviated with a single change. It is not necessary to choose to crusade for human rights instead of animal rights when both can be improved simultaneously.

In China and India the high demand for expensive foodstuffs prompts employers to cut corners in production to keep costs down. Shortcuts such as employing a minimal staff at the lowest possible wage, and disregarding humane treatment of animals. These shortcuts have a negative effect on both the employees and the livestock. An improvement made to this system would benefit humans and animals, thus their plight can be seen to be linked.

Of course I could be wrong... I'm sorry Sorcha, but your arguments in this thread really are badly worded.

[katt]

I think the point Sorcha is flailing towards is that in certain circumstances human suffering AND animal suffering can be alleviated with a single change. It is not necessary to choose to crusade for human rights instead of animal rights when both can be improved simultaneously.

In China and India the high demand for expensive foodstuffs prompts employers to cut corners in production to keep costs down. Shortcuts such as employing a minimal staff at the lowest possible wage, and disregarding humane treatment of animals. These shortcuts have a negative effect on both the employees and the livestock. An improvement made to this system would benefit humans and animals, thus their plight can be seen to be linked.

Of course I could be wrong... I'm sorry Sorcha, but your arguments in this thread really are badly worded.


I am not sure it is 'cutting corners' in production so much as increasing stocking densities. Any abuses that stem from these farming procedures (in and of themselves) stem from the perceived cruelty to animals raised in tight quarters.

This system of mass production does require an increased technology (in the form of genetics/breeding, disease management (ie antibiotics to control), facilities ..etc)

As i said earlier the employees would probably getting small wages even if they were on a backyard farm somewhere. So I don't see their plight as having much to do with the changes in the nature of the work itself

The only way to provide food cheaply to a huge,growing population of people is to use modern technology. That is just the nature of the game (increase the yields taken from a given space on earth..and we do have limited space on earth). And I do not think staying away from efficient farming techniques for the comfort of the animals has all that much to do with the plight of humans.

And mass production of certain meats has given alot of hungry people food.

[Sorcha]

That is basically what I was trying to say Erasmus, thanks for that.

Ignore my drunken posts! lol...

[gembird]

And I do not think staying away from efficient farming techniques for the comfort of the animals has all that much to do with the plight of humans.

The thing is, you don't need to stay away from efficient farming techniques. If things are done correctly, and people abide by the regulations set by the government, you can have intensive farming on a large scale without unnecessary suffering for the animals. In an efficient farming system, the number of animals is the optimum for the space available. You save on heating by keeping lots of animals in one place, but that doesn't matter if you shell out loads to replace a lot of them or get the vet in because they're too close together and keep getting ill. Of course, this sort of thing does depend on the legislation being appropriate and taking animals' needs into account. In the UK we're lucky enough to have such legislation, part of which says that you cannot feed your animals antibiotics to keep them disease free when crammed into tiny spaces- this makes it very hard for farmers to keep their animals in poor conditions as they will have so much money to spend on vet's bills when disease spreads. I know that seems irrelevant when it comes to some other countries, but in places where people are very poor, the farmers can't afford things like preventative antibiotics anyway, so stocking rates still need to be carefully considered.

It is related to the plight of people to some extent- if a high proportion of animals are unfit for consumption due to the way they have been reared and handled, meat prices go up and less people can afford to eat.

[Pie hunter D]

Weeeell if we break it down into simple terms. Look at the natural world.

Things die so that other things can live, it's been that way since the dawn of time. Considering the population increase of humans it's just common sense to farm more animals and cultivate more crops to feed ourselves. The alternative to this is basically stripping the lands bare of all forms of life... better solution? mmm no. Ok this reads like idiots guide 101 , but I have a point.
Sorcha is getting at the fact (unless i'm mistaken) that we share this earth and being the dominant lifeform have to make sure we don't fuck it up for everything else that lives here. Meanwhile addressing the issue of food considering the fact that things have to live and die to subsidise our needs.
It's how we keep the animals and how we dispose of them for consumption that's become the issue here. Yes, there are force farming methods employed around the world, but I think you'll find that awareness has risen sharply in regards to the treatment of animals in both the farming world and in public views.
There's a much wider variety of free range goods and farmers are employing a lot more care. Even so much as a good few years back I was taken to an abbatoir with the army to see cows being slaughtered (don't ask me why) and the methods were very quick, clean and efficient.

Probably sounds like a ramble but i'm still drowsy :p

[katt]

, but in places where people are very poor, the farmers can't afford things like preventative antibiotics anyway, so stocking rates still need to be carefully considered.

.

The chinese put all sorts of chemicals to treat disease into their intensive aquaculture ponds. In fact, some of these chemicals are not yet available to western governments to use due to concerns over saftey. I don't believe they are allowed to export fish raised this way to the US either.

But yeah, my point was, they do have disease management via chemicals in poorer countries; usually out of necessity

Anyway I find it grating when people preach about what poor people who might starve otherwise should or should not do to feed themselves with reference to the feelings of the animals.

I am not even sure what industry in particular all this criticism is being directed at in this thread? chicken farming in india???? Does anyone even really know what goes on in the typical chicken mass production operation in india? I know i would have to read up on it

[Smokey]

The "cutting corners" mentioned happens in all industries across the globe. When a computer can control access to a building you don't need as many security staff. The production of animals for slaughter requires very few employees in the first place.

Take a flock of chickens farmed for their eggs as an example. They need someone to collect the eggs and feed them. In both intensive and less intensive it takes one person to feed the chickens. However a farmer wouldn't hire a great team of people to collect his free range eggs, maybe one or two which would normally be family. There would be virually identical employees for a more intensive farm. As such animal cruelty has very little if any effect on unemployment.

[Purple Wabbit]

human beings matter more than a bunch of chickens and should take priority. which is obvious unless you are intentionally being controversial

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but whatever way I look at it, I can't see why this is 'obvious.'

I hate to go into a rant here, but this attitude really annoys me. Can anyone give me a single reason why humans matter more than chickens, that isn't 'we're superior.' We're not superior, the huge majority of 'dumb' animals do not kill their own kind, do not enslave other creatures to work for them, do not kill other creatures in any more capacity than what is immediately needed for food.

Why do we think ourselves superior to other creatures? Because our superior intellects helped us come up with the joys of mass meat production? Because we use our higher evolved brain power to think up new ways to slaughter and enslave animals for our convenience all the time? Go us!

Now I admit, I'm only a veggie - not a vegan, so I'm aware that I can't claim that no animals suffer for my convenience. I'm aware that many will think my attitude hypocritical, and you may be right. But I hate the attitude inherent int he quote above, that there's simply no debate as to whether animals should have rights; of course they shouldn't, they're there for our convenience! Humans come first!

I'm sorry, but I just can't understand the view that simply the fact that we evolved more intelligently than other animals gives us a right to do anything we want to them and damn the rest.

[asmodai]

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but whatever way I look at it, I can't see why this is 'obvious.'

I hate to go into a rant here, but this attitude really annoys me. Can anyone give me a single reason why humans matter more than chickens, that isn't 'we're superior.' We're not superior, the huge majority of 'dumb' animals do not kill their own kind, do not enslave other creatures to work for them, do not kill other creatures in any more capacity than what is immediately needed for food.

Why do we think ourselves superior to other creatures? Because our superior intellects helped us come up with the joys of mass meat production? Because we use our higher evolved brain power to think up new ways to slaughter and enslave animals for our convenience all the time? Go us!

Well humans matter more than chickens because that's what we are. As a species our first and only priority is survival, and in every single animal and plant on this planet this means total disregard for any other species. Other animals don't sit around debating cruelty to their food sources, our superior intellect allows us to.

Eating meat has been the foundation of our diets since we first evolved, from when we were primative and did not argue the flaws. We now know that a vegetarian diet makes more sense economically and ethically, but because we have always been eating meat there is no way to get rid of such a huge industry now.

And in response to the original question, different people will always draw the line in different places, we all have seperate experiances and situations that dictate to us what is acceptable and what isn't. Doing practicals like dissection are vital to training the next generation of biologists in concepts that you need to know. This training could lead to vital break-throughs in the future, things that can help humans as a whole. It really isn't pleasant to do things like that to animals, and nobody enjoys it. I'll admit, the chick thing just sounds unpleasant and wasteful, but sometimes it has to be done.

[Purple Wabbit]

Well humans matter more than chickens because that's what we are. As a species our first and only priority is survival, and in every single animal and plant on this planet this means total disregard for any other species. Other animals don't sit around debating cruelty to their food sources, our superior intellect allows us to.

Other animals don't sit around debating cruelty to their food sources because they don't have evolved intelligence that allows them a moral code. We do. If we think this makes us so superior, maybe we should start acting like it?

[gembird]

And in response to the original question, different people will always draw the line in different places, we all have seperate experiances and situations that dictate to us what is acceptable and what isn't. Doing practicals like dissection are vital to training the next generation of biologists in concepts that you need to know. This training could lead to vital break-throughs in the future, things that can help humans as a whole. It really isn't pleasant to do things like that to animals, and nobody enjoys it. I'll admit, the chick thing just sounds unpleasant and wasteful, but sometimes it has to be done.

I agree with you about dissection- something like that is actually going to help people learn. If you don't know how an animal works, you can't do anything to help those that are still alive- whether that's in a veterinary surgery, a research lab or elsewhere. However I would like to say that it does help the living populations of animals as well as humans, you may think we're more important than the other animals but we do regard our pets as being pretty damn important :)

Also, my point about the chicks was that it didn't have to be done at all- that was why I was angry. I can accept that some experiments do have to be done on animals as there is currently no other feasible way of doing things, but for students to be doing an experiment every year for no other reason than it teaches them that experiments don't always work is plain stupid. By all means teach them that lesson, but not with living creatures. There are plenty of other ways to find that out without having to put animals through unnecessary suffering.

[MamboCat]

When it comes to animal testing in science, the scientific community doesnt help itself by not informing the public enough about what exactly goes on in an animal house. Britain has the tightest regulation on animal testing and reserchers have to state specifically every step they are going to take on an animal in an experiment and apply for a specific license. If they want to modify their protocol in any way, even the smallest detail: it has to be reported to the regulatory authority and a new licence must be applied for. Theres no way around it. Also, animal houses are randomly checked to ensure that welfare laws are being adhered to by the letter. Animals used for research are kept and treated better than most household pets! It makes sense as well, a badly treated animal will be stressed and wont cooperate with you when you want to test on it, and the conditions of stress will alter your results and make the experiment worthless. Its in everyones interest to take care of laboratory animals.

What the scientific community also needs to do is make people AWARE of whats called the three Rs: Refinement, Reduction and Replacement. Methods which do not require animals are currently being developed for use in mainstream science but as yet, nothing can replace animals. Even in vitro techniques need cells and where do you think those come from?! Also: most animals used are creatures like flies, nemotode worms, and eventually animals such as mice and rats will be used. These animals are considered pests by most! Yes, dogs are used occasionally and sometimes primates but these are only used when necessary. The horrific pictures that say, the ALF produce are either forgeries or from decades ago when animal rights legislation was not in place. What these people dont understand is if animal testing is banned here, it WILL go to countries where regulation is not in place and animals WILL suffer unnecessarily.

[darkfoot_727]

My opinion on all of this is complex in a way, but I'll put it in point form:

1. We al must eat meat and wear fur when there is a need for it
2. We must kill in order to obtain such things
3. Killing things must be done humanely and within reason, that is to say, end said animal's life, but do it in a way that is painless, but will not spoil or poison the end product.
4. Killing for a pointless reason, however, is not within reason and isn't humane.
5. Medical experimentation that is pointless should be stopped.
6. Any experimentation that is pointless should also be stopped.
7. Male chicks should be taken in by farms as meat animals and the best of the males should be breeding roosters.
8. Dissection is great, but only if the animals were humanely killed or died of natural causes.

I hope this has elightened you as to what my point of view is....

[MamboCat]

Just to clarify, what do you define as a "pointless experiment"? Do you mean you think all experiments on animals are pointless or do you just mean the ones where there's not a lot of information extracted from them, or ones that have alternative means?

A good example of the latter is the old Draize test which I'm sure you are all aware of: putting test compounds in animals' eyes. It's simply not done anymore because there are better methods (removing the eyes from animals from abatoirs for example...) and the test caused great stress. Crap experiments get the boot, quite frankly.

[darkfoot_727]

By pointless experiments, I mean ones with better alternatives, not all experimentation is pointless, dissection is a type of experiment, it's not pointless, though you might not want to see food for a week after doing one(I never done one personally, but someone told me what it was like).