Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Ethical food consumption

124

Replies

  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 4,528Member Member Posts: 4,528Member Member
    Peeking at your profile, "around here" is probably not typical for beef operations, anyway, at least if one looks at the source of overall production, on average.

    One question is whether chicken could be produced more efficiently than beef even if less industrialized. I suspect so, given that the issue with cattle in part is that the amount of calories they are fed is less than that they produce, and of course the land requirements.

    There is some land that is likely better suited to cattle than other agricultural uses (I have family from areas of Nebraska where I believe that was so, and they had a ranch back in the late 1800s, early 1900s), but raising cattle only on such land, while much more efficient in terms of feeding than what we currently do would not come close to meeting demand. The question is if that is so, is the answer to say we need industrial cattle operations? I don't think we do. (Saying we don't "need" it to feed the world is a different question than whether it is ethically wrong for some reason, but I think the claim we need it is being used to avoid consideration of the other issues.)
    edited January 10
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,559Member Member Posts: 7,559Member Member
    liftingbro wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, I grew up in the countryside, on a small, family farm. We had sheep, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. so I do know something about it, although not everything for every kind of animal.

    What I do know, however, is that last 20 years (in my country, probably more in the more developed countries) there has been a huge trend toward industrial farming even in small or family businesses. Even between people who just grow animals for their own needs. It's quite irrational since they do have land, they do have customers willing to buy and pay a bigger price for it, they have lower initial costs regarding equipment, and yet many of them choose to go high tech and usually fail in few years because of too big initial costs and credits they cannot pay off.

    To give you a small example - nowadays nobody has a hen with eggs/chickens, almost every household has an incubator for laying chickens.

    Well, I like to support those who make an additional effort to go beyond something that is a current, IMO very cruel, trend.

    EDIT:
    Regarding pastures - I just feel the need to share an image where my ancestors were raising sheep and planted olive trees (it's a very rocky terrain, in live, it looks almost like a surface of the moon):
    m5rry7gs1cy9.png

    Those sheep actually play a big role in keeping vegetation alive on these islands.
    My point is - not all land is good for everything, but through history, we adapted to survive and thrive even on the poorest land.

    Sheep and goats can be raised on just about any land because they are smaller and require less food. You can't have cattle on that sort of terrain, they would go lame from the rocks and wouldn't have enough grass.

    Sheep and goats are not going to support the meat/milk needs of the world on their own.

    I love goats milk and mutton. I grew up on a farm too.

    Sheep and goats are more efficient converters of plants into animal protein than cattle, so your assertion is illogical.

    and sheep and goats have been used for their milk for 1000s of years.

    That's obvious. Nobody is disputing you can't use goats and sheep for milk. Have you ever seen how much milk 1 cow these days can produce? Average cow now days produces 9 gallons a day, goat 1 gallon, maybe. A cow will eat 100lbs per day, goat 4lbs. So yes, for pound of food in to pound of food out Goats are better that way but the there is much more labor involved in running a goat farm for milk.

    However much more efficient they may be in producing meat/milk they are much more difficult to keep:

    https://newfoodeconomy.org/the-goat-gap/

    I'm not against goat/sheep, I love goat milk and meat. Just not practical for the current population of the planet.

    "Practical for the current population of the planet" would be for consumers of animal products to get a higher proportion of their diet from non-animal sources.

    May be but for people into fitness and athletics the protein requirement is even higher than the average person eats right now. If we want a bunch of skinny folks running around we could all go vegan. Personally, I don't think another person's morals are to be pushed on everyone else but I know a lot of people that think that way.

    I'm not talking about morals. I was addressing your repeated argument that somehow cattle consumption is necessary to feed the world and that other protein sources are impractical.

    It is. Unless you want to tell people they can't eat meat or have to eat less than the RDA. Even the RDA isn't suitable for active people though.

    What source are you basing that on? Plenty of other sources of protein seem more efficient to produce than beef.

    I already posted an article above about it.

    #1- Goats require more manual labor than cows.
    #2- The nature of goats means they get more diseases.
    #3- If it were true you could produce more meat and milk on a same sized farm as an average cattle based farm farmers would do that but they don't.

    There's also very little demand for goat meat/milk in most industrialized countries. So basically, more labor= more cost. More disease=more cost. Sure, if every family raised goats it would work but in a society where very few people want to keep animals we are dependent on industrial farms and goats are not suitable for that type of farming.

    I'm not comparing only with lamb and goats.

    If you look at this, beef is by far less efficient than everything but sheep and goats:

    https://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/sustainable-diets-what-you-need-know-12-charts

    https://www.wri.org/resources/charts-graphs/animal-based-foods-are-more-resource-intensive-plant-based-foods

    Even if you exclude plant-based sources (which I wouldn't, since one option is just to eat less animal based, more plant based), chicken and pork are more efficient sources. Of course, right now the industrial farming of them is pretty horrible, but as Lynn said we aren't talking about morals, we are talking about the claim that cattle consumption is necessary to feed the world.

    Yes, of course chicken and pork are more efficient sources of meant but obviously not dairy. I believe pork is already the most eaten meant world wide so...

    So, yes, we could shift to more chicken and pork but they are probably even more industrialized than cattle. I've worked on an industrial chicken farm which is one reason I don't eat chicken from those farms. My job was to vaccinate chickens and pack them in cages for transport. Literally 20 chickens in a little square mesh cage. A stink in the barn so bad it wouldn't wash off. It's disgusting, even for farming. I know pig farmers and while the pigs are actually treated pretty well their farms are huge scale.

    Most dairy and beef farmers seem to much smaller operations than pork, chicken and turkey operations. At least around here.

    So your argument to eat cattle is really based on your effort to foist your moral view that cattle are generally more ethically treated than pigs, chicken, and turkey.
  • BuiltLikeAPeepBuiltLikeAPeep Posts: 118Member Member Posts: 118Member Member
    daneejela wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    Problem is that there's no way to provide the amount of meat to feed everyone without industrial farms and also have it at a price that is generally affordable.

    Also, if we're talking about fitness, protein requirements are higher than the RDA.

    I am not sure if this is the case...at least not in my part of the world...there are so many abandoned lands that nobody cares for and pasture that is being trimmed with trimming machines. It's almost impossible to see a cow, a pig or a sheep outside in the countryside.

    If all those land would be utilized, I would probably share your opinion, right now it sounds too me like one of those widely spread beliefs that are hard to prove/disprove.

    Regarding proteins...I don't have enough knowledge to argue about how much proteins we need, but a look into the historical consumption of proteins raises a question if we maybe are going overboard with proteins lately.
    (I am not talking about bodybuilders, but an average person with average physical activity)

    Even though this is wildly off-topic, I completely agree. The town I live in (semi-rural NC) has many empty buildings that could be put to better use. Our own government is part of the problem- there have been 4 social security office buildings that have been built in our town since the 1980s, and only 2 are being used by other businesses. You see roadkill everywhere because of the logging and everybody hits at least 1 deer per year in their cars because they're always on the move. We have an empty Kmart building, but instead of it being used, they're building a Tractor Supply store elsewhere.
    While the land may not be prime for raising livestock, it's not being used either. Sometimes I feel like local farmers are being forced into smaller and smaller spaces so that the only option for raising animals for food is the nightmares you have at the industrial farms where there are many animals crammed into small spaces. But that's just my 2 cents on the situation.
  • Carlos_421Carlos_421 Posts: 5,076Member Member Posts: 5,076Member Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, I grew up in the countryside, on a small, family farm. We had sheep, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. so I do know something about it, although not everything for every kind of animal.

    What I do know, however, is that last 20 years (in my country, probably more in the more developed countries) there has been a huge trend toward industrial farming even in small or family businesses. Even between people who just grow animals for their own needs. It's quite irrational since they do have land, they do have customers willing to buy and pay a bigger price for it, they have lower initial costs regarding equipment, and yet many of them choose to go high tech and usually fail in few years because of too big initial costs and credits they cannot pay off.

    To give you a small example - nowadays nobody has a hen with eggs/chickens, almost every household has an incubator for laying chickens.

    Well, I like to support those who make an additional effort to go beyond something that is a current, IMO very cruel, trend.

    EDIT:
    Regarding pastures - I just feel the need to share an image where my ancestors were raising sheep and planted olive trees (it's a very rocky terrain, in live, it looks almost like a surface of the moon):
    m5rry7gs1cy9.png

    Those sheep actually play a big role in keeping vegetation alive on these islands.
    My point is - not all land is good for everything, but through history, we adapted to survive and thrive even on the poorest land.

    Sheep and goats can be raised on just about any land because they are smaller and require less food. You can't have cattle on that sort of terrain, they would go lame from the rocks and wouldn't have enough grass.

    Sheep and goats are not going to support the meat/milk needs of the world on their own.

    I love goats milk and mutton. I grew up on a farm too.

    Sheep and goats are more efficient converters of plants into animal protein than cattle, so your assertion is illogical.

    and sheep and goats have been used for their milk for 1000s of years.

    That's obvious. Nobody is disputing you can't use goats and sheep for milk. Have you ever seen how much milk 1 cow these days can produce? Average cow now days produces 9 gallons a day, goat 1 gallon, maybe. A cow will eat 100lbs per day, goat 4lbs. So yes, for pound of food in to pound of food out Goats are better that way but the there is much more labor involved in running a goat farm for milk.

    However much more efficient they may be in producing meat/milk they are much more difficult to keep:

    https://newfoodeconomy.org/the-goat-gap/

    I'm not against goat/sheep, I love goat milk and meat. Just not practical for the current population of the planet.

    "Practical for the current population of the planet" would be for consumers of animal products to get a higher proportion of their diet from non-animal sources.

    Ground that isn't suitable for cattle isn't suitable for food crops.

    Sorry, but that is a non sequitur. I said nothing about using ground not suitable for cattle to grow food crops. The point is that it is more efficient for humans to get their calories directly from the plants rather than to use "middlemen" (middleanimals?) to consume plants that humans could consume (corn, other grains, and soy) -- you can feed more people an adequate diet if you just feed them the plants directly. And, in general, if you are going to eat animals and animal products (dairy, eggs), it tends to be more efficient to eat smaller animals. The amount of plants you have to feed a smaller animal to get a pound of flesh or X number of edible calories to consume will generally be less than the amount you have to feed a larger animal to produce a pound of flesh or X number of edible calories.

    And if you look historically and globally, land that was suitable for food crops wasn't wasted on cattle, or goats, or sheep. Grazing animals were domesticated, managed, or herded to make use of land that wasn't suitable for food crops. Humans didn't have a long enough digestive tract to make use of grass, brush, etc., directly, so they ate the animals that could make use of those plants.

    ETA: Also, if you look historically and globally, poor people tend to have much less animal protein in their diet than higher-income or higher-wealth people. This seems like a far odder choice on their parts if animal protein is the only practical and economic way to ensure an adequate diet for the world than the choice of industrial farms to focus on what is, relatively speaking, a luxury product. If producing luxury products was such a bad economic for those looking to turn a profit, there would be no jewelers, no boat makers, no builders of high-end houses. Every car would be a basic, utilitarian model.

    The bolded is exactly what I was getting at.
  • maureenkhildemaureenkhilde Posts: 835Member Member Posts: 835Member Member
    Interesting topic, and while I can say that for vegetables I do tend to get organic, buy at vegetable/fruit stands local. Much more than buy at large chains. And really make a concentrated effort to use up all the edible parts in veges and fruits. For meats/poultry/fish I aim to buy in portion size or cut down to portion size that I know gets used 100%.
    Just in last couple of months found a place to buy eggs that are raised locally. Better yet, I bring my own container to put them in.

    Because in many places, but most certainly here in the USA. One of the largest issues we face is the fact that never for most parts of the country has there been a huge mandatory push for recycling plastic and all other items that should be recycled. And that issue is going to continue to become a huge burden. Heck some cities stopped their recycling efforts once China and other Asian countries quit accepting our so called recycled plastic.
    I think stores should charge for the plastic one use bags. And go back to brown paper bags, or we use or own bags. For all major chains that sell their own bags I have them. In my humble opinion.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,600Member Member Posts: 21,600Member Member
    I also try to eat as ethically as possible. There are several organic, grass feed farms (I visited one, the pastures are very nice) that sell whole and half cows, pigs, and chickens. Eggs I get from a guy at church who has chicken. I think milk is vile, so I don't drink it. I am planting a garden this year- i have deer but my friends hubby is going to build me an enclosed garden, yay! I also bought a house with a double lot and am planting fruit trees. There won't be fruit for a few years, but it's coming.

    But my main question is- what is the ethical argument against wool? Sheep grow wool not matter what, it doesn't harm them to sheer it off, so what the problem there?

    A vegan would avoid wool because we can't be sure if the animal is treated humanely while being used for wool. There is abuse of animals in this industry. Also, when an animal's wool production falls, they're often slaughtered (as they are no longer profitable).
  • shonnakraft89shonnakraft89 Posts: 246Member Member Posts: 246Member Member
    For us, it means hunting, fishing and growing as much of our food as we can.
    Eventually humanely raising what we can as well. This way, we know what we're eating, we know that getting from "farm to table " was as humane as possible.
  • nooshi713nooshi713 Posts: 3,929Member Member Posts: 3,929Member Member
    I do not want to cause animals harm. I love animals. I am very much against factory farming because animals there are treated very poorly. Many are tortured.

    If someone wants to eat meat, pasture raised is best, or buying from farms where at least their time on this earth is peaceful is better. Eating less meat and dairy helps, even if one doesn’t eliminate it entirely.

    I eat mostly plant based now. I do eat occasional eggs from a friends backyard chickens. Occasionally I eat shrimp or fish.

    I also feel it is important to protect our environment too. I try to use as little plastic as possible and recycle everything I can. I have silicone straws and containers now, and reusable grocery bags.
    edited January 13
  • kshama2001kshama2001 Posts: 21,244Member Member Posts: 21,244Member Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    liftingbro wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, I grew up in the countryside, on a small, family farm. We had sheep, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. so I do know something about it, although not everything for every kind of animal.

    What I do know, however, is that last 20 years (in my country, probably more in the more developed countries) there has been a huge trend toward industrial farming even in small or family businesses. Even between people who just grow animals for their own needs. It's quite irrational since they do have land, they do have customers willing to buy and pay a bigger price for it, they have lower initial costs regarding equipment, and yet many of them choose to go high tech and usually fail in few years because of too big initial costs and credits they cannot pay off.

    To give you a small example - nowadays nobody has a hen with eggs/chickens, almost every household has an incubator for laying chickens.

    Well, I like to support those who make an additional effort to go beyond something that is a current, IMO very cruel, trend.

    EDIT:
    Regarding pastures - I just feel the need to share an image where my ancestors were raising sheep and planted olive trees (it's a very rocky terrain, in live, it looks almost like a surface of the moon):
    m5rry7gs1cy9.png

    Those sheep actually play a big role in keeping vegetation alive on these islands.
    My point is - not all land is good for everything, but through history, we adapted to survive and thrive even on the poorest land.

    Sheep and goats can be raised on just about any land because they are smaller and require less food. You can't have cattle on that sort of terrain, they would go lame from the rocks and wouldn't have enough grass.

    Sheep and goats are not going to support the meat/milk needs of the world on their own.

    I love goats milk and mutton. I grew up on a farm too.

    Sheep and goats are more efficient converters of plants into animal protein than cattle, so your assertion is illogical.

    and sheep and goats have been used for their milk for 1000s of years.

    That's obvious. Nobody is disputing you can't use goats and sheep for milk. Have you ever seen how much milk 1 cow these days can produce? Average cow now days produces 9 gallons a day, goat 1 gallon, maybe. A cow will eat 100lbs per day, goat 4lbs. So yes, for pound of food in to pound of food out Goats are better that way but the there is much more labor involved in running a goat farm for milk.

    However much more efficient they may be in producing meat/milk they are much more difficult to keep:

    https://newfoodeconomy.org/the-goat-gap/

    I'm not against goat/sheep, I love goat milk and meat. Just not practical for the current population of the planet.

    "Practical for the current population of the planet" would be for consumers of animal products to get a higher proportion of their diet from non-animal sources.

    Ground that isn't suitable for cattle isn't suitable for food crops.

    Sorry, but that is a non sequitur. I said nothing about using ground not suitable for cattle to grow food crops. The point is that it is more efficient for humans to get their calories directly from the plants rather than to use "middlemen" (middleanimals?) to consume plants that humans could consume (corn, other grains, and soy) -- you can feed more people an adequate diet if you just feed them the plants directly. And, in general, if you are going to eat animals and animal products (dairy, eggs), it tends to be more efficient to eat smaller animals. The amount of plants you have to feed a smaller animal to get a pound of flesh or X number of edible calories to consume will generally be less than the amount you have to feed a larger animal to produce a pound of flesh or X number of edible calories.

    And if you look historically and globally, land that was suitable for food crops wasn't wasted on cattle, or goats, or sheep. Grazing animals were domesticated, managed, or herded to make use of land that wasn't suitable for food crops. Humans didn't have a long enough digestive tract to make use of grass, brush, etc., directly, so they ate the animals that could make use of those plants.

    ETA: Also, if you look historically and globally, poor people tend to have much less animal protein in their diet than higher-income or higher-wealth people. This seems like a far odder choice on their parts if animal protein is the only practical and economic way to ensure an adequate diet for the world than the choice of industrial farms to focus on what is, relatively speaking, a luxury product. If producing luxury products was such a bad economic for those looking to turn a profit, there would be no jewelers, no boat makers, no builders of high-end houses. Every car would be a basic, utilitarian model.

    Not being overweight or obese would also decrease the need for production of animal products. With 71.6 % of the population of the US overweight or obese, we are over-consuming.

    I spent a few months in poor, rural Costa Rico. During that time, I only saw one obese person - the local jefe. (this is just observational; I am not claiming it was statistical.)

    We got most of our raw ingredients locally. Fruits and vegetables were abundant, and rice & beans were carried in by local farmers on horseback. We had eggs once or twice a week, and chicken every 10 days or so. I definitely didn't have any beef while I was there, but I have no idea what was the "jungle meat" our neighboring Guyami Indians would bring over from time to time. :lol:

    Similarly, when I lived in Okinawa in the 80's and shopped in local markets, fruits and veggies were dirt cheap, and beef so expensive I did not buy it locally. I don't remember seeing any obese local people then.

    Okinawa is a Blue Zone: https://www.bluezones.com/2017/05/okinawa-diet-eating-living-100/
  • robertw486robertw486 Posts: 2,080Member, Greeter Member Posts: 2,080Member, Greeter Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I actually think of it as a little broader.

    This is sort of a downer, but personally, I think all of us well-off (in global terms) first-world-ers are unavoidably little moving bundles of global harm: Environmental damage, human exploitation, animal exploitation, more.

    Nice people do things to mitigate that harm, and it makes sense to start with the things that are easiest for us as individuals. There's no way to completely fix all the harm done on our behalf, sadly.

    So, eating ethically, in ways that work for us, that we can fit into our lives, is a rational thing for a nice person to try to do.

    It's really complicated, in some cases, because real-world actions all have side effects, so many things are profoundly interconnected these days, and one gets into trying to assess comparative harm. Since much of the readily-available information is going to come from advocacy organizations on one side or another, it can be difficult for a non-expert to sort out what really is more ethical, or at least less unethical: Eating plant-based foods that require clearing forest land, and transport from far-away places, maybe exploited labor; or meat that's produced locally and with transported inputs? Efficent factory-style operations that help more humans, and economically less advantaged humans, to get better nutrition? Lots of dimensions.

    Like I said, I think nice people do what they can, and do the best they can with it. It's hard to discuss, without getting into quasi-religious arguments about it, IMO.

    Well stated. In reality it's all a very complex balance, and each person has to find what they feel is the best balance.

    What is the most ethical or humane for the animal might also have a much larger environmental impact. A good example of this is grain fed vs grass fed beef. One could argue that the free roaming grass fed beef supply is treated more humanely but while doing so that animal will use more land, more water, emit more greenhouse gasses, and will still ultimately die.

    Many plants that people on all kinds of diets eat are incredibly water hungry for the nutrition they return. In some parts of the world industrial plant production has vast ethical consequences, such as many rural homesteader families in Chile having to truck in water since the avocado farms drain sources dry and the natural source is no longer available. Should I enjoy a nutritious, delicious, cheap avocado at the expense of someone in another country? Probably not.

    "Ethical" in terms of food consumption is very complex in my opinion.


    As far as what we try to do as a family...

    Consume less beef and more efficient chicken and poultry as primary meat sources

    Try to move towards more plant based protein sources

    Avoid any cruel animal treatment practices while accepting that every animal killed is cruel in some sense

    Think about the entire environmental impact of the process rather than cherry pick. If I make multiple trips in a gas guzzling SUV to buy my "environmentally friendly" product, haven't I somewhat defeated the point?



    I just do what I can do and what I think is right for my situation.
  • MotorsheenMotorsheen Posts: 16,127Member Member Posts: 16,127Member Member
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    [I am very much against factory farming because animals there are treated very poorly. Many are tortured.

    I prefer my Fried Chicken to have been Waterboarded while in captivity.
  • jm_1234jm_1234 Posts: 142Member Member Posts: 142Member Member
    France to ban culling of unwanted male chicks by end of 2021
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51301915
    About seven billion male chicks - not wanted for meat or eggs - are killed around the world each year, usually in shredding machines or by gas.

    I thought the above was interesting. I believe a similar practice happens with male dairy cows. It makes me curious, even if I buy step 5 animal welfare milk and eggs, does it mean only the living animals were treated well? Or does it also apply to how they treat the unwanted animals that don't produce dairy and eggs?


  • mbaker566mbaker566 Posts: 10,689Member Member Posts: 10,689Member Member
    jm_1234 wrote: »
    France to ban culling of unwanted male chicks by end of 2021
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51301915
    About seven billion male chicks - not wanted for meat or eggs - are killed around the world each year, usually in shredding machines or by gas.

    I thought the above was interesting. I believe a similar practice happens with male dairy cows. It makes me curious, even if I buy step 5 animal welfare milk and eggs, does it mean only the living animals were treated well? Or does it also apply to how they treat the unwanted animals that don't produce dairy and eggs?


    male dairy cows are often sold for meat. if not for human consumption, for dog or cat. from what i read and the one diary farmer i knew
  • jm_1234jm_1234 Posts: 142Member Member Posts: 142Member Member
    Maybe it's a European thing...

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/21/morrisons-moves-to-end-killing-of-male-calves-at-birth
    It can cost a farmer £2 a day to rear a calf, with selling prices as low as £25–40. In contrast, shooting the calf costs as little as £9, including the bill for disposing of the animal.

    A Guardian investigation last year revealed an estimated 95,000 male dairy calves were being slaughtered on-farm as farmers couldn’t afford to keep them, in a practice known as the dairy industry’s “dirty secret”.
    edited January 30
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,600Member Member Posts: 21,600Member Member
    jm_1234 wrote: »
    France to ban culling of unwanted male chicks by end of 2021
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51301915
    About seven billion male chicks - not wanted for meat or eggs - are killed around the world each year, usually in shredding machines or by gas.

    I thought the above was interesting. I believe a similar practice happens with male dairy cows. It makes me curious, even if I buy step 5 animal welfare milk and eggs, does it mean only the living animals were treated well? Or does it also apply to how they treat the unwanted animals that don't produce dairy and eggs?


    It's pretty bold of them to announce they're ending the practice before we've actually developed a way to sex a bird pre-hatching. They're either really confident that the method will be ready in time or they're counting on people not caring much if the date has to be set back.

    For male dairy calves, the length of their life depends on what the market is for beef and veal. Sometimes they're killed relatively quickly for veal, sometimes they live longer and are then killed for beef. But there are also times when immediate killing costs less than the cost of bringing them to market, so they're just killed immediately (usually by gunshot, I believe).

    My understanding is that there are no "Step Five" standards for dairy products, only for beef. The guidelines for laying hens only apply to hens -- there is nothing in there about male chicks: https://globalanimalpartnership.org/standards/laying-hen

    My assumption would be that their practices are the same as the rest of the industry, as it isn't economically feasible to house a bunch of male chickens with no economic benefit.
Sign In or Register to comment.