This article deals with the daily tragedies that occur to supply us with Big Macs and chicken nuggets. http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/04-4om/Jones.html
Remember this in business: the employee takes the money.When as a consumer you shop , you are the employer.To improve the conditions of animals the answer is not to go vegan but to demand humanly produced food.There was some research done a few months ago that showed that if an animal is frightened prior to being killed the meat becomes less tender.
I am aware of your opinions on the matter, but history seems to indicate otherwise. Twenty-five years ago, the burgeoning humane movement came to the conclusion that asking people to be vegetarians was much too extreme. Instead, they supported "humane slaughter" reforms and took no strong stands against the meat industry. Look where this got us. In the years since, the factory farms have only become more confining and industrialized, the slaughterhouses larger and faster-paced, and the number of animals raised and killed every year have increased by dizzying levels. It is simply impossible to raise and slaughter the immense numbers of animals industrialized nations consume every year in individualized, natural, more humane systems. Animal advocates are right in trying to reduce the demand for meat, which means fewer animals would be raised into these crowded conditions to begin with.
Maybe I could start a campaign for lableing of free range beef.Most beef in Australia is free range.As far as I know all lamb from NZ is free range.Why not start a campaign to get people to buy free range? A vegan told me that cow manure is good as a fertilizer.The packaged stuff comes from feedlots.Is it not far more humane to be using blood & bone that came from a free range animal than comw manure that comes from a ghastly feeedlot?
From what I have read, most U.S. 'beef' cattle start out life on the range, but then are shipped to the huge factory feedlots after they reach a certain age. This allows the cows to fatten to slaughter weight by eating bulky foods, thus creating the fatty marbled meat Americans prefer. Some US based organizations, such as Animal Welfare Institute and the American Humane Association, have promoted free range meats to varying degrees of success. It is certain that these brand names will remain those of limited reach and 'boutique' appeal, however. Supporting vegetarianism more closely aligns with the beliefs of many animal protectionists, after all, taking strong positions against some cruelties while remaining wishy-washy on the #1 reason animals are intentially raised and killed hindered the standing of the humane movement for many years. It is also an easier message to communicate to interested people, ex. "Become a vegetarian" vs. "Do huge amounts of backtracking to find out how every piece of meat you eat was housed, transported, and slaughtered." This isn't to say everyone shouldn't think about their food choices, but when it comes down to that first soundbyte, the former is much more direct and understandable. And, let's face it--free range or not, the meat industry, in first-world nations at least, kills huge numbers of animals for no dire purpose beyond tastebuds. We rage when it's four million animals put down by injection because no one wants them, but shrug when nine billion are electrucuted or shot with a bolt pistol because we like the way their flesh tastes. Both could be ended (probably the meat question even more so) if we wanted them to.
