OT: eggs going cheap in Sainburys !

Yes. Particularly on the basis that if it happened to be a dairy breed male which would otherwise have been killed at birth. I don't know the current rules on Veal crates but it would have enjoyed such life as it had, here.

A better parallel might be horse. Good eating but our current public view is to maintain them beyond working age, spend money on extending life and then have them expensively cremated.

Not sure if this is current. (EU cage dimension/ floor space rules). 40 years ago, you could buy spent layers with just these problems. Unless you legislate to ban breed crosses which produce such rapid growth or convince housewives to stop buying cheap chicken, I don't see much prospect for improvement.

What chemicals would these be?

Ok, but if you could assure such, would you, if you had to 'qualify' for a meat eaters licence?

Ok.

Well, other than I'm guessing the rabbit was already dead before you got to it?

It's just the action of leading pretty defenseless and semi-trusting and intelligent creature, like a cow, into a metal holding frame and then killing it.

Cheers, T i m

'95% of the younger generation will eat chicken nuggets and sausage rolls made out of bumholes, noses, ears, eyelids, nails, cartilage, veins and bone, but won't eat a bruised banana'. ;-)

It wasn't dead before the boy who went rabbiting the night before got to it.

Owain

Do I have to pass the driving theory test before I'm allowed to use a bus?

Owain

Quite, just for being an unwanted side effect of a very commercial process.

Well, some might question which was the best path.

Quite. And only in this and some other 'civilised' countries. Others treat them as we would a pig or cow and others will work them to near death and then kick them into the kerb.

We do also race / jump them to death of course and that seems 'acceptable' to many? Or like with meat they enjoy 'having a flutter' more than the welfare of an innocent animal?

Well, 'the truth' would be enough if you got it out there and I believe that is happening now.

We either demonstrate we are treating the animals the best we can (so true organic / free range) or move away from eating them. Again, both things are and have been happening for some time now (but still have a long way to go).

Hormones (reproduction), antibiotics (illness / mastitis, treatment and preventative)? You may have more current information.

The point is 'we are what we eat' and whilst the quantities of chemicals found in dairy and meat that we consume are only required to be below what are considered 'safe limits', these limits can be massaged by pressure from the industry itself. (I'm guessing, ideally there wouldn't be *any* chemicals in stuff we eat, irrespective the source).

Like the Red Tractor mark and such farms being woefully below the agreed (and often self managed) standards.

The thing is, it's not just the one thing, it's a wealth of things that mostly seem to be bad for the planet we all live on (pollution, and resources) and the animals themselves.

You need fields(or hydroponics etc), water and fertiliser if you are growing crops for cows to eat or crops for us to eat, just that you need less of it if we take the animals out of the process (and we can).

We only eat animals (or drink their lactate) because we can, not because we need to.

Cheers, T i m

'.... but Lions eat meat?

Yeah, I guess that's why you go to Tesco to buy artificially inseminated, genetically manipulated, synthetically supplemented and industrially domesticated animal flesh that is already cut up and wrapped in plastic ... just like a lion. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Not the same thing though eh. Riding on a bus rarely requires the loss of an animals life.

No obligation to answer if it's too difficult etc. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

'It never ceases to amaze me that you can be both arrested and paid for killing animals.' ;-)

In message , T i m writes

I looked at the first page of Google's offering, much of it seemed to relate to America or elsewhere in the world and targeted at financial contributions rather than factual reporting.

Why? Organic simply raises the production cost. Free range is an emotive sound bite and has little to do with enhancing poultry happiness/productivity.

Growth hormones were phased out by the EU around 1990, I am not aware of hormones being used to enhance reproduction (USA uses BST for enhanced milk production and steroids for beef) antibiotics are used here to treat illness but not as a preventative. Mastitis is a disease of the udder in dairy cows, nothing to do with calves.

Basically an advertisement. When did you start believing them?

OK. Protein/protein something like 3:1 for poultry and 4:1 for beef

Your choice. There may be a more appropriate news group than this one:-)

An estimated 30 million birds, 100,000 foxes, 50,000 badgers and 50,000 deer are killed every year on UK roads.

Owain

For one thing it's the right thing to do?

So?

Agreed and so needs fixing.

Something it's suggested we will be importing more of if/when Brexit happens.

Ok. Maybe that's changed then.

Other than I guess we wouldn't be milking their mothers for the milk the calves should be getting we might not see so much of it? Especially when we have no need nor right to be drinking it ourselves.

Not for Tesco's or Hogwood Farm I'm guessing. ;-)

Did you watch the full thing ooi?

But what if you equate that to the protein we would get from the field without having the animal in the cycle?

Different thing altogether Tim. You don't *need* to eat meat (as a human being). Being an omnivore includes being a vegetarian or a vegan.

It might not be as much of a free choice in the future as it is now. But as with all things we manage to exploit, consume and pollute, it might have to get worse before they realise what needs to be done to make it better, for all our (and the animals) sakes.

There may well be. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

'Every worm, every insect, every animal is working for the ecological well being of the planet. Only we humans who claim to be the most intelligent species here, are not doing that.'

Or undertake removal of a cancerous intestine?

I've shot and killed and eaten plenty of small feathered and furry things

I think we should take T i m up to the permafrost taiga and tell him to live off the land without eating meat.

We eat meat because in many places we have to, not because we can. We eat meat here, because its nice to eat. Hunters and meat eaters are superiors beings, slaves and other assorted peasants grind and eat corn.

In message , T i m writes

No. The trailer was so blatantly false I didn't think it necessary.

er. I thought I had. Poultry feed is largely cereals we could potentially eat ourselves. Bread from Barley perhaps? Not much protein in grass so feeding it to cattle may not be that daft.

Livestock have been part of waste re-cycling for so long that consumers forget until something like BSE or Foot and Mouth gets into the national press. The waste from ARWs beer production is fed to cattle. Pig swill dates back before WW2. Drive across East Anglia before Autumn ploughing and you realise where the Turkey s*it goes. Methane production plants are in use but introduce issues of bulk transport.

My choice though.

How about suggesting this as a prospectus for a new political party?

No, they are each working out of self interest which happens to coincide with continuing their species.

Ok, still not sure what they have to do with the *intentional* killing of a captive / farmed animal to eat?

What are you saying ... that 'man' is causing the deaths of millions of innocent animals around the world? Does that affect anything re mass meat production?

As I said, you don't have to answer the question. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Was this when you were living on the permafrost?

And 'shot' eh, sounds like a fair fight. ;-(

But as long as they were killed cleanly and taken at the right time of year / season etc then that's better than commercial farming / supply of the same things.

It's also a step towards taking the responsibility for your actions. You pulled the trigger so you know a life was taken (all be it probably at a 'safe distance'. Might not be quite the same when it was clamped in a frame and you were looking into it's eyes).

Cheers, T i m

Ah, it's always good to be fully objective. ;-)

Ok. And were you saying the direct conversion from cereal to human is better or worse than cereal > chicken > human?

But you wouldn't necessarily grow the same thing, you would just use the same growing space more efficiently (by growing drops that humans can used directly etc).

See above.

And we are told you can no longer feed animals to animals that aren't particularly meat eaters.

But could probably also used to make a fertiliser? Is it the best thing to feed pigs on, or is it just a convenient way of disposing of a waste product?

As did smoking.

Yes, 'of course' there will be examples of where it happens we can manage or even use such waste products to our advantage but what when there is too much, it washes into the sea and ruins that?

Yup, an example of a negative of this potentially unnecessary waste product. My point was that it was never an issue when you had 'a few cows' in a meadow (eating grass and getting their B12 fix) and drinking from the river / stream at the bottom of the field (getting more B12) and spreading the muck over the field as they went. Take that same meadow, cover it with concrete and steel pens, fill it with cows, feed them on pellets and give them chlorinated drinking water (no B12 x 2) and you now also have a big waste issue.

Oh, of course, never denied or questioned that for a second! ;-)

The thing is we come from different backgrounds. You (your family) have been party to the use of animals ('exploitation' some might say now days) in a commercial environment (even if only 'dairy'). You had a dog that was probably a 'working dog' and it slept on the step. We have cared for animals, even rescued injured wild ones (I had a Rock Dove for a few years that was very tame) and our dog sleeps on the end of the bed.

I'm not suggesting either is right or wrong, your dog probably wasn't a 'companion animal' whereas our is, so we would treat them differently, so it's highly likely we would then extend that relationship to many other animals.

What I find confusing (well, I don't but bear with me) is we take our kids to the local petting farm where they feed the baby goats and lambs, scratch the pigs and cows and stroke the horses and when they hold the BBQ in the evening, no one explains to the kids that the chicken they were talking to and interacting with a few hours earlier is now in their nuggets?

Likewise, the kids brought up on livestock farms are born into the whole cycle and so grow up accepting it as 'normal'. Once an animal is nicely packaged in a nice plastic tray (with a blood absorbing pad underneath so there is less chance of the buyer being reminded it was once a living creature) the disconnection between product and source is made and the commercialism continues.

I think most political parties would respond favourably to any public pressure in any direction that is proven to cause less suffering and exploitation of / to animals, the problem for any party is being up against the might of the meat industry (less so the dairy as it's not seen as such a direct issue).

The problem any party is up against is the millions of people who have this disconnect and it's difficult to get people to stop doing what they enjoy, even when it's *directly* proven to affect their health, like not wearing a safety belt (that they are *still* fining people for every day) or to stop smoking. Getting them to stop eating that burger, sausage or nugget (that has no link whatsoever to the animal it was made from) is going to be difficult (but we are getting there). ;-)

Taking the kids round the local abattoir in their little Hi-Viz crocodile is likely to have more immediate and long lasting results, it would be getting enough councilors to help them for the rest of their lives that may be the issue. ;-(

Same outcome though and according to Darwin, not completely by accident. I'm *told* we have the intelligence to do better than the animals though?

And animals don't generally consume all the world resources or pollute their own environment on such a global scale as we have?

Foxes and hares. If the foxes eat all the hares they die of starvation, they don't keep hundreds in tiny cages ... [1] ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Rice production is said to be a killer! No crop production is death free. Perhaps hydroponics, but this could only feed the wealthy!

Falling off the slopes? I think they are growing rice hydroponically so that will make it safer. ;-)

No, but there is a big difference between accidental deaths and an industry that is based on death.

Again, depends on need and scale. *If* fresh drinking water becomes an issue in the future (and it already is in various parts of the world), and land available to grow anything (veg or meat), we will have to invest in more water and space efficient ways of growing stuff.

I think we have several hydroponic farms over here growing things like cress and lettuce and I was surprised how fast and how little space they needed to produced what they did.

Cheers, T i m

I do wonder if this is how some people consider how we come by 'meat' ...(Milliways, Hitch Hikers guide ...) ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Interesting thanks.

... Well it will, it will make matters worse if there are more people sick than there could be, just because they were eating meat?

As I have said, I have seen loads of medical advice about 'us all' eating less meat and maximum quantities per week (which suggests a risk and the recommendation reducing that risk by some degree) but I've never seen any such advice about eating less fruit and veg?

And as with all things, all that is assuming 'reasonable' consumption of *anything*.

Cheers, T i m