ITT: Morally justify why you eat factory farmed meat.

[PLAYER57832]

BTW... I haven't ready all the posts here, but has anyone asked you yet to define the term "Factory Farm"? It seems to me that's a very generic and wide ranging term. At what point does a "Farm" become a "Factory Farm"? What are determining factors? Size? Ownership? Method of production? Please be specific...

Actually Factory farm refers pretty specifically to the huge operations that treat animals like machine parts and that are almost by definition abusive to some extent.

[pmchugh]

Uh yeah, hog castration is usually done without anaesthetic and isn't that bad, really. They're fine minutes after the testes are removed.

-TG

They squeal in terror and pain.

Its not a matter of saving money. An injection of anesthetic would actually cause more trauma/harm than the operation.

A piglet squeals when you just come near it. If you hold them the right way, they generally calm down. Farmers typically cut the teeth that become tusks, castrate them and clip their ears or tag them all together in a process that takes just a few seconds total when done by a professional. When released, the pigs stop squealing pretty quickly, so your idea of them being tortured just does not bear up to the evidence. The most traumatic part is the holding. To do an injection properly, you would have to hold them about as long as for the castration. Also, when you numb an animal you put them at risk of serious injury because, unlike humans, they don't understand why the area is numb and unlike young human infants are not just going to lay there, either.


Sooo... what this really is is yet another case of anthropomorphized imagination, not looking at how animals really act, think and feel.

Can I ask you for sources on all the above?

Characteristics of vocalisations (peak frequency, pureness
and entropy of the sound) emitted by 2-week-old piglets
during the surgical period of castration, and comparisons to
those emitted during the pre- and post-surgical handling
periods, have been analysed in detail by Puppe et al.
(2005). They observed subtle alterations like lower entropy
of high-frequency calls. Such alterations are believed to
be under the control of brainstem centres that receive
information from higher sensory and emotional brain
areas (Manteuffel et al., 2004). Therefore, they are probably
indicators of an acute pain provoked by surgical castration.

Differences in the vocal type distributions (grunting,
squealing and screaming) between piglets castrated with
and without anaesthesia were reported by von Borell et al.
(2009). Piglets that were not anaesthetised during castration
produced a higher proportion of screaming sounds.

Very recently, Llamas Moya et al. (2008a) confirmed that
behaviour of piglets castrated at 5 days of age is modified
after castration. Some modifications were detectable only
during the initial hours following the surgery (less locomotion,
more trembling and spasms, more ‘huddled-up’ and
scratching the rump), whereas others were observable until
3 days after castration (more isolation and desynchronisation
of behavioural activity, less social interaction and dogsitting).
In general, these behavioural alterations are of low
or moderate extent but allow a reduction in the stimulation
of the painful area by a direct effect (e.g. more huddling,
less locomotion and dog-sitting) or by the avoidance of
littermates (e.g. isolation and desynchronisation).

Source

I am no expert on the matter, but it seems as if your position is not backed up by science.

[PLAYER57832]

Uh yeah, hog castration is usually done without anaesthetic and isn't that bad, really. They're fine minutes after the testes are removed.

-TG

They squeal in terror and pain.

Its not a matter of saving money. An injection of anesthetic would actually cause more trauma/harm than the operation.

A piglet squeals when you just come near it. If you hold them the right way, they generally calm down. Farmers typically cut the teeth that become tusks, castrate them and clip their ears or tag them all together in a process that takes just a few seconds total when done by a professional. When released, the pigs stop squealing pretty quickly, so your idea of them being tortured just does not bear up to the evidence. The most traumatic part is the holding. To do an injection properly, you would have to hold them about as long as for the castration. Also, when you numb an animal you put them at risk of serious injury because, unlike humans, they don't understand why the area is numb and unlike young human infants are not just going to lay there, either.


Sooo... what this really is is yet another case of anthropomorphized imagination, not looking at how animals really act, think and feel.

Can I ask you for sources on all the above?

Sure. I already posted links to the data I disputed.
As for what happens to pigs during castration... its me.. seen it many times, done it a few.

it seems as if your position is not backed up by science.

Really?
Presenting a couple of studies in no way indicates your position is firm science. The studies you have cited are not publicly available, so I cannot critique them. That said, all you show is that some studies have reported negative responses. However, without knowing how the study was conducted, that's worthless. Were the practitioners truly skilled? What specific technique did they use? That can make a HUGE difference. Initially, you made the statement that the procedure was done without anesthesia. When a couple of us countered with explanations of why, you now have moved to these references. If I did not have years of personal experience in this, I would not be quite so skeptical. However, those claims just do not match what I have seen.

Furthermore, even if those claims were completely accurate, the studies conducted by true professionals, what is described are relatively mild symptoms. You would have to compare that to what would happen if the animals were not castrated. In most cases they would become highly aggressive, fight among each other causing serious injury, and otherwise cause more harm that is more severe and direct than what you describe. That, too, is required to make a real scientific claim... comparison with the alternative.

I mean, do you even know what happens to male pigs in the wild? Male pigs kill, even eat piglets they come across.

Here is the bottom line-- You can take just about any activity and show "evidence" that it is harmful. Pretty much anything.
There is more to science than just collecting data and putting it through some analysis. I am going to make a leap and accept that the above studies were well-conducted -- a very GIANT leap, by-the-way, given the high percentage of studies that do not yield the same results when redone. (and I mean published, supposedly reputable studies, not frauds or shoddy work). To really understand anything you have to put it into full context. If you start with the idea that eating animals is bad, then you go out of your way to find data to support your position. Yes, I realize you are going to say the opposite, that I and the others who have posted the reverse are doing the same thing in the opposite direction. The trouble? We have millennia, literally, backing up our claims. Also, though you deny this, we do have multiple studies. Not all get into journals because journals don't tend to publish the 100th time someone proves that no, pigs really do not fly on their own power. They will publish the one study that claims to show pigs do fly ... sometimes even if it later is proven false or partially false. This is not because journals are biased, per se. It is because their purpose is to present new information for the scientific community to challenge.

Now, understand, there are plenty of issues with farming of animals. As I stated earlier, one of the reason claims like this tend to irritate me is that they take away from very real and true problems.

For example, the biggest problems with factory farming, the huge scale operations is actually not how the animals are treated. (not saying I like it, but that its not the biggest issue). Far bigger issues are things like the lack of genetic diversity, when a single cow is bred and bred and bred, eggs flushed each time so they can be implanted into genetically "inferior" animals. That on top of the basically normal shift to a few particularly prized strains of pig. Another is the heavy, heavy standard use of antibiotics. Another problem is what they do with waste. Packaged and sold or spread on croplands, its great. Too often, though, its piled up and let to seep into streamcourses or even occasionally dumped into rivers/streams. That's even without discussing the impact to wildlife from escaped pigs. Pigs are directly responsible for decimating many species on the Hawaiian islands, but also in North America. A fourth issue is the low pay and skill of farm workers. That does tie directly to abuse of animals. A manager that cannot be bothered to treat human employees well is probably not going to care much about the animals, either (not always true, but very often).

All of these issues are much worse in some other countries than in either the US or Europe.

[mrswdk]

Presenting a couple of studies in no way indicates your position is firm science. The studies you have cited are not publicly available, so I cannot critique them. That said, all you show is that some studies have reported negative responses. However, without knowing how the study was conducted, that's worthless.

Pay attention, hugh. PLAYER is revered on CC for her thorough referencing and effective use of evidence to support her points. You could learn from her.

[tzor]

As for what happens to pigs during castration... its me.. seen it many times, done it a few.

So can I call you "Shardra the Castrator" then?

show

[PLAYER57832]

Presenting a couple of studies in no way indicates your position is firm science. The studies you have cited are not publicly available, so I cannot critique them. That said, all you show is that some studies have reported negative responses. However, without knowing how the study was conducted, that's worthless.

Pay attention, hugh. PLAYER is revered on CC for her thorough referencing and effective use of evidence to support her points. You could learn from her.

Said from someone who has a habit of ignoring any real challenges...

Oh, and in case you missed, it, I DID and generally do reference. HOWEVER, as I have said many times before, simply providing a link does not prove anything. Even providing a few scientific studies does not necessarily prove anything. Publication of a study does not prove it is the best study, it just shows that someone has proposed something relatively new and that there was enough evidence that proper procedures were followed to allow publication. What a lot of you try to ignore is that in most cases, publication is not the end, it is the beginning of real criticism. In this case, the studies cited are not available to public viewing and therefore I am not able to see what any problems might be with the study.

Further, as I noted, even if the studies cited were completely accurate, they don't actually prove what p. is claiming they prove -- namely that castration is a terrible procedure that amounts to abuse. Instead, he is showing that pigs experience mild discomfort, but utterly fails to contrast that with what would happen if the pigs were left uncastrated.

[pmchugh]

Oh Player, how you have made my day.

You go on and on and on about how publication isn't the be all and end all, how a few different studies done by multiple people and peer reviewed does not necessarily mean truth - all of which is reasonable - until you hit out with your own source. You.

Player is a more reliable source than peer viewed science, fact.

Even providing a few scientific studies does not necessarily prove anything.

Can I ask you for sources on all the above?

Sure... its me...

[Bernie Sanders]

Can we at least admit one thing? These animals were conceived through human intervention. If they weren't a food source for us they would not exist.

With that said, until science/biology develops our animal protein without brains [unless you like brains] the crusade for animal rights will continue.

I do eat free range chicken and chicken eggs and the "taste" is far superior.

[tzor]

Bernie, Player,

There is only one way to solve this ...
The Conquer Club way ...
We meet on the field of meat!

(Invitations have been sent.)

[pmchugh]

Can we at least admit one thing? These animals were conceived through human intervention. If they weren't a food source for us they would not exist.

With that said, until science/biology develops our animal protein without brains [unless you like brains] the crusade for animal rights will continue.

I do eat free range chicken and chicken eggs and the "taste" is far superior.

I can't wait until the day meat made in a lab is affordable. I don't think it will be too long. I would be willing to bet that within a generation or two almost everyone in the US/UK will have stopped eating food that came from sentient creatures.

[Bernie Sanders]

Bernie, Player,

There is only one way to solve this ...
The Conquer Club way ...
We meet on the field of meat!

(Invitations have been sent.)

Once I'm finished with my travels, I'll go with a premium. I can't play this game on my phone, but posting on the discussion board is fine. Right now I have 4 games going. If a game opens up, I'll accept your challenge!

[mrswdk]

I can't wait until the day meat made in a lab is affordable. I don't think it will be too long. I would be willing to bet that within a generation or two almost everyone in the US/UK will have stopped eating food that came from sentient creatures.

Bet they don't. From what I've heard lab meat tastes like shit, and real meat can already be pretty darn cheap if you want it to be.

[tzor]

I can't wait until the day meat made in a lab is affordable. I don't think it will be too long. I would be willing to bet that within a generation or two almost everyone in the US/UK will have stopped eating food that came from sentient creatures.

I'm sure that lots of salmon are hoping the same from wild bears as well.

Then again, I'm probably one of the few people who thought that the assisted suicide scene in "Soylent Green" was actually a preferable way to die (if you are going to die, dying in a virtual field of nature with Beethoven in the background is probably better than a lot of alternatives). The real question is how they die. Consider the annual presidential pardon of the turkey. He gets to go to Disney where ... well he dies because his way of life wasn't suitable for his long term living. Deer who have been saved from hunters gets hit by cars and die painful deaths.

I think the ideal way is to treat all sentient creatures with dignity both in their lives and in their deaths. Now this will, by necessity reduce the overall supply of meat, and for the most part we will become mostly vegetarians, or we may return to the good old days of NOTHING being wasted from animals, which is the most respectful thing you can do for any sentient creatures.

[tzor]

Bet they don't. From what I've heard lab meat tastes like shit, and real meat can already be pretty darn cheap if you want it to be.

Two points to consider.

It's a little early to consider "lab meat" viable. Let's give it a couple of decades until you can have a slab of vat grown muscle tissue that is actually exercised and developed properly as suits the complex nature of such cells.

When in doubt, adopt the French philosophy and cover it up with the proper sauce.

[mrswdk]

When in doubt, adopt the French philosophy and cover it up with the proper sauce.

Sounds more like the American approach. Ketchup on everything!

[Bernie Sanders]

When in doubt, adopt the French philosophy and cover it up with the proper sauce.

Sounds more like the American approach. Ketchup on everything!

Ketchup or A1 steak sauce, it's all sauces, whether you like it or not.

[mrswdk]

When in doubt, adopt the French philosophy and cover it up with the proper sauce.

Sounds more like the American approach. Ketchup on everything!

Ketchup or A1 steak sauce, it's all sauces, whether you like it or not.

Yup. A1 steak sauce is also American.

[pmchugh]

I can't wait until the day meat made in a lab is affordable. I don't think it will be too long. I would be willing to bet that within a generation or two almost everyone in the US/UK will have stopped eating food that came from sentient creatures.

Bet they don't. From what I've heard lab meat tastes like shit, and real meat can already be pretty darn cheap if you want it to be.

Today, in 20 hundred and 16 yeah. We are talking in like 60 years time, think of the technological advances of the last 60 years. Once it gets to similar taste and price levels it will be seen as barbaric to eat otherwise. IMHO.

I can't wait until the day meat made in a lab is affordable. I don't think it will be too long. I would be willing to bet that within a generation or two almost everyone in the US/UK will have stopped eating food that came from sentient creatures.

I'm sure that lots of salmon are hoping the same from wild bears as well.

Then again, I'm probably one of the few people who thought that the assisted suicide scene in "Soylent Green" was actually a preferable way to die (if you are going to die, dying in a virtual field of nature with Beethoven in the background is probably better than a lot of alternatives). The real question is how they die. Consider the annual presidential pardon of the turkey. He gets to go to Disney where ... well he dies because his way of life wasn't suitable for his long term living. Deer who have been saved from hunters gets hit by cars and die painful deaths.

I think the ideal way is to treat all sentient creatures with dignity both in their lives and in their deaths. Now this will, by necessity reduce the overall supply of meat, and for the most part we will become mostly vegetarians, or we may return to the good old days of NOTHING being wasted from animals, which is the most respectful thing you can do for any sentient creatures.

I agree with some parts of this for sure. And I am not going to argue the point over whether its right to kill or not as I just don't think its all that important. Where I disagree is that using more of the animal makes any difference, if someone killed me for parts I would be no more or less respected if it was just for my pocket rocket or if it was for my whole body. What matters most is what you mentioned previously; how it lived and died.

[riskllama]

[quote="pmchugh]
I can't wait until the day meat made in a lab is affordable.[/quote]
China, korea(?) and most of SE Asia have been eating lab meat for centuries. golden lab, chocolate lab, black lab...heck, they even bust out the silver lab on occasion...

[tzor]

I agree with some parts of this for sure. And I am not going to argue the point over whether its right to kill or not as I just don't think its all that important. Where I disagree is that using more of the animal makes any difference, if someone killed me for parts I would be no more or less respected if it was just for my pocket rocket or if it was for my whole body. What matters most is what you mentioned previously; how it lived and died.

I think it would be a waste if I was only taken for a small part of me. That's why I don't particularly like "shark fin" soup or the idea of killing a rhino just for his horn. I'm reminded of the song "All of me."

[PLAYER57832]

:lol: Oh Player, how you have made my day.

You go on and on and on about how publication isn't the be all and end all, how a few different studies done by multiple people and peer reviewed does not necessarily mean truth - all of which is reasonable - until you hit out with your own source. You.

Player is a more reliable source than peer viewed science, fact.

Try again...
1. Your references were worthless because I could not check them, could not verify anything.

2. EVEN with that, I still said I was going to go on as if your results were 100% correct. Even if your reference is fully correct, it did not truly counter my point the way you seemed to think it did.

3. In this case it does happen that I and a few others actually are experts in this field. Of course, since I, at least, don't give out my RL information, you cannot verify that.. but I would say my first hand account is better than your report of a third hand account, particularly since I have explained WHY my account is correct. In other words, I tried to assess the reasons why the above result would appear, based on my knowledge, rather than just saying "your reference is wrong"... and STILL was able to show that your reference did not prove what you claimed.

Sooo... go ahead and laugh all you wish. Then again, you might try actually thinking, instead of just reciting things you have memorized.

[pmchugh]

:lol: Oh Player, how you have made my day.

You go on and on and on about how publication isn't the be all and end all, how a few different studies done by multiple people and peer reviewed does not necessarily mean truth - all of which is reasonable - until you hit out with your own source. You.

Player is a more reliable source than peer viewed science, fact.

Try again...
1. Your references were worthless because I could not check them, could not verify anything.

They have been peer reviewed by other scientists, they have been published and they have been sited by the EU. There will now be a voluntary ending of pig castration in the EU by 2018 as a result. I am sorry but I don't value a strangers opinion on the internet above published research. On this site you will find a list of organisations which have signed the pledge, including lots of farming and meat industry type folks who would surely have something different to say if this was all nonsense:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-saf ... ion_en.htm

2. EVEN with that, I still said I was going to go on as if your results were 100% correct. Even if your reference is fully correct, it did not truly counter my point the way you seemed to think it did.

I will circle back and re-read, but you did spend almost all of your post saying that it couldn't be trusted.

3. In this case it does happen that I and a few others actually are experts in this field. Of course, since I, at least, don't give out my RL information, you cannot verify that.. but I would say my first hand account is better than your report of a third hand account, particularly since I have explained WHY my account is correct. In other words, I tried to assess the reasons why the above result would appear, based on my knowledge, rather than just saying "your reference is wrong"... and STILL was able to show that your reference did not prove what you claimed.

Sooo... go ahead and laugh all you wish. Then again, you might try actually thinking, instead of just reciting things you have memorized.

Oh dear player... please stop doing this. If you have done any experiments, or seen any experiments which prove your point then we can talk. If you were the king of pig castration with all the credentials in the world it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, you would still need to provide evidence rather than anecdote.

Furthermore, even if those claims were completely accurate, the studies conducted by true professionals, what is described are relatively mild symptoms. You would have to compare that to what would happen if the animals were not castrated. In most cases they would become highly aggressive, fight among each other causing serious injury, and otherwise cause more harm that is more severe and direct than what you describe. That, too, is required to make a real scientific claim... comparison with the alternative.

I mean, do you even know what happens to male pigs in the wild? Male pigs kill, even eat piglets they come across.

There is no need to deal with what happens to them if they aren't castrated if you just stop breeding them into existence in the first place, which is kind of my whole point. We could go through lots of effort, care and expense to try and ensure animals treated well, knowing that there will be cases where we fail and cases of abuse... or we could just eat something else.

I don't think there is anyway to deal with the fact that profits and welfare are at odds, unless we legislate the crap out of everything. I would like to see you try that in the US with the agri-lobby.

For example, the biggest problems with factory farming, the huge scale operations is actually not how the animals are treated. (not saying I like it, but that its not the biggest issue). Far bigger issues are things like the lack of genetic diversity, when a single cow is bred and bred and bred, eggs flushed each time so they can be implanted into genetically "inferior" animals. That on top of the basically normal shift to a few particularly prized strains of pig. Another is the heavy, heavy standard use of antibiotics. Another problem is what they do with waste. Packaged and sold or spread on croplands, its great. Too often, though, its piled up and let to seep into streamcourses or even occasionally dumped into rivers/streams. That's even without discussing the impact to wildlife from escaped pigs. Pigs are directly responsible for decimating many species on the Hawaiian islands, but also in North America. A fourth issue is the low pay and skill of farm workers. That does tie directly to abuse of animals. A manager that cannot be bothered to treat human employees well is probably not going to care much about the animals, either (not always true, but very often).

I think all of these are genuine and real reasons which people need to be made aware of, but I disagree with your first line. I think the way animals are treated is one of the biggest issues, the only contender I see from the things you listed is anti-biotic use.

[PLAYER57832]

I can't wait until the day meat made in a lab is affordable. I don't think it will be too long. I would be willing to bet that within a generation or two almost everyone in the US/UK will have stopped eating food that came from sentient creatures.

Bet they don't. From what I've heard lab meat tastes like shit, and real meat can already be pretty darn cheap if you want it to be.

Cheap and ecologically sound.

[PLAYER57832]

:lol: Oh Player, how you have made my day.

You go on and on and on about how publication isn't the be all and end all, how a few different studies done by multiple people and peer reviewed does not necessarily mean truth - all of which is reasonable - until you hit out with your own source. You.

Player is a more reliable source than peer viewed science, fact.

Try again...
1. Your references were worthless because I could not check them, could not verify anything.

They have been peer reviewed by other scientists, they have been published and they have been sited by the EU.

They have been published, fine. However, unless I can read them, I cannot critique them. And, what I said earlier is true. at least 20% of reputable, published studies are not reproduceable. Publishing means they followed basic science, but even peer-reviewed articles can have problems.

There will now be a voluntary ending of pig castration in the EU by 2018 as a result. I am sorry but I don't value a strangers opinion on the internet above published research.

I don't value unreliable links that I cannot trace when they don't match my own personal experience and research. You put it out, provide a source that is not closed and then you have a leg to stand upon. Else.. its just your say so and definitely not better than what I have said, not because I have said it, but because I back up what I have said with more than just quotes from third parties. First hand testimony trumps heresay.

On this site you will find a list of organisations which have signed the pledge, including lots of farming and meat industry type folks who would surely have something different to say if this was all nonsense:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-saf ... ion_en.htm

Actually, that link is for a workshop on alternatives to castration. It does appear to have references, but right now, I don't have the time to track it all down. You said it was a list of people/groups opposing castration.. it is not that.

2. EVEN with that, I still said I was going to go on as if your results were 100% correct. Even if your reference is fully correct, it did not truly counter my point the way you seemed to think it did.

I will circle back and re-read, but you did spend almost all of your post saying that it couldn't be trusted.

Wrong, I said YOU cannot be trusted, you did not provide a verifiable source. I can only guess what it might or might not have said. That is the point.. without the actual source, there is no way to judge its contents. Your say so, not based on first hand evidence, but on your reading of this report is not the same as actually presenting the published report. And no-- its not equal to what I have said because, again, I am giving a first hand account. You are interpreting something you have read.

]3. In this case it does happen that I and a few others actually are experts in this field. Of course, since I, at least, don't give out my RL information, you cannot verify that.. but I would say my first hand account is better than your report of a third hand account, particularly since I have explained WHY my account is correct. In other words, I tried to assess the reasons why the above result would appear, based on my knowledge, rather than just saying "your reference is wrong"... and STILL was able to show that your reference did not prove what you claimed.

Sooo... go ahead and laugh all you wish. Then again, you might try actually thinking, instead of just reciting things you have memorized.

Oh dear player... please stop doing this. If you have done any experiments, or seen any experiments which prove your point then we can talk. If you were the king of pig castration with all the credentials in the world it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, you would still need to provide evidence rather than anecdote.

Why bother.. you make it clear that you have read everything that exists on this topic, that you are the only real expert here.. and your sources that cannot even be read by anyone without private access prove your point. The public sources I have cited and can cite "obviously" don't match your wholly private and inaccessible information.

Furthermore, even if those claims were completely accurate, the studies conducted by true professionals, what is described are relatively mild symptoms. You would have to compare that to what would happen if the animals were not castrated. In most cases they would become highly aggressive, fight among each other causing serious injury, and otherwise cause more harm that is more severe and direct than what you describe. That, too, is required to make a real scientific claim... comparison with the alternative.

I mean, do you even know what happens to male pigs in the wild? Male pigs kill, even eat piglets they come across.

There is no need to deal with what happens to them if they aren't castrated if you just stop breeding them into existence in the first place, which is kind of my whole point. We could go through lots of effort, care and expense to try and ensure animals treated well, knowing that there will be cases where we fail and cases of abuse... or we could just eat something else.[/quote]
and yet.. you ignore the very real cost of that "eating something else" and that what you propose is actually pretty harmful -- harmful, in fact to the very animals you claim to admire

I don't think there is anyway to deal with the fact that profits and welfare are at odds, unless we legislate the crap out of everything. I would like to see you try that in the US with the agri-lobby.

lol
I am quite involved in that lobby, but more in regard to changing school diets and market sales. However, my basic point is that your analysis of alternatives is just wrong. You keep ignoring that point, though.

For example, the biggest problems with factory farming, the huge scale operations is actually not how the animals are treated. (not saying I like it, but that its not the biggest issue). Far bigger issues are things like the lack of genetic diversity, when a single cow is bred and bred and bred, eggs flushed each time so they can be implanted into genetically "inferior" animals. That on top of the basically normal shift to a few particularly prized strains of pig. Another is the heavy, heavy standard use of antibiotics. Another problem is what they do with waste. Packaged and sold or spread on croplands, its great. Too often, though, its piled up and let to seep into streamcourses or even occasionally dumped into rivers/streams. That's even without discussing the impact to wildlife from escaped pigs. Pigs are directly responsible for decimating many species on the Hawaiian islands, but also in North America. A fourth issue is the low pay and skill of farm workers. That does tie directly to abuse of animals. A manager that cannot be bothered to treat human employees well is probably not going to care much about the animals, either (not always true, but very often).

I think all of these are genuine and real reasons which people need to be made aware of, but I disagree with your first line. I think the way animals are treated is one of the biggest issues, the only contender I see from the things you listed is anti-biotic use.

Yeah, well....
when you provide readable links that actually support your claims, then we can talk.

[pmchugh]

Jesus Christ, are you really going to keep peddling the whole "I am a better source than your science-mumbo-jumbo". I don't care if the sources for a published paper are behind scientific journal paywalls, they are a million times better than "first hand testimony" from some random on the internet.

Provide your own sources, or find someone else in the world who actually agrees with you.

On this site you will find a list of organisations which have signed the pledge, including lots of farming and meat industry type folks who would surely have something different to say if this was all nonsense:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-saf ... ion_en.htm

Actually, that link is for a workshop on alternatives to castration. It does appear to have references, but right now, I don't have the time to track it all down. You said it was a list of people/groups opposing castration.. it is not that.

My mistake, I meant to link:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfar ... dex_en.htm

Under signatories:
COPA-COGECA (European farmers and European agri-cooperatives)
Eurogroup for Animals
UECBV (The European Livestock and Meat Trading Union)
CLITRAVI (Liaison Center for the Meat Processing Industry in the European Union)
FESASS (The European Federation for Animal Health and Sanitary Security)
EAAP (European Federation for Animal Science)
EFFAB (European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders)
FVE (Federation of Veterinarians of Europe)
Danish Agriculture and Food Council
DBV (German farmer association)
VDF (German meat industry association)
HDE (German retail federation)
Scientific experts from INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique)
COV (Dutch red meat slaughterhouses)
LTO Nederland (Dutch pig farmers organisation)
NVV (Dutch pig farmers organisation)
NBHV (Dutch livestock traders organisation)
ANAS (Associazione Nazionale Allevatori Suini) - Italy
DMRI (Danish Meat Research Institute)
OIVO - CRIOC (Centre de Recherche et d'Information des Organisations de Consommateurs)
FEFAC (European Feed Manufacturers' Federation)
CIWF (Compassion in World Farming)
The Dublin Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – Republic of Ireland
Finnish Farm Animal Welfare Council
Galician Meat Technology Centre – Spain
Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals
PROVIEH VgtM e.V. – Germany
SCIENTIFIC EXPERT from IFIP - “Institut du porc en France"
PMAF - Protection Mondiale des Animaux de Ferme
Soil Association, UK
ANPROGAPOR, Spain
Le Centre Wallon de Recherches agronomiques
Dyrenes Beskyttelse (Danish Animal Welfare Society)
Comité Régional Porcin de Bretagne (CRP Bretagne)