Differences in Beef Quality From Factory Farmed Cattle to Free Range Cattle
A. Sparrow/flickr
Similar many people who pay attention to how food is produced, I've come up to abhor factory farming and the environmental and welfare problems that accompany it. My personal choice to eliminate factory-farmed animal products from my diet largely reflects this abhorrence.
Where I intermission from nigh careful consumers is in my decision to avoid meat from gratuitous-range animals and other alternative sources. This position hasn't won whatever popularity contests for me. My occasional critiques of gratuitous-range beast farming have led to, amidst other things, threats by a butcher to separate me from a specially valued bagginess as well equally frequent charges that I'thou a hired gun for agribusiness. Both concepts are equally difficult to contemplate.
We believe animals deserve living under weather that let them the gamble to seek happiness (which is not to say they won't become another animal's tiffin).
My typical line of set on on free-range systems has been to illuminate hidden or unpublicized environmental and wellness-related pitfalls—some pocket-sized, others not so—in an endeavor to persuade ethically-minded consumers that although free-range might be better than factory-farmed, it is not the panacea then many make it out to be. Merely this approach, for a broad variety of reasons (many of them my own fault), has been a bust.
Turns out every study has a counter-study; every supposition a counter-assumption; every bold statement an angry butcher waiting on the other cease to castrate, well, my argument. It took me a while to figure this out, but drawing on scientific literature to tarnish the supposed purity of free-range farming is, when you get right down to it, counterproductive. Paradoxically, by critiquing gratuitous-range animal products with the weapons of scientific discipline, I've possibly inspired more consumers to eat more free-range meat than to give it upwards. Information technology'southward a dispiriting thought at best.
And so I've decided to go back to the cartoon board. Information technology'due south not that I'm prepared to back off my stance on free-range meat. Instead, I want to be deliberate almost my choice to avoid animate being products in a more philosophical style. I'll thus begin with the bones question: Why do I recall we should we avoid eating animals products produced nether alternative, free-range systems?
My answer actually starts with factory farming—which produces 99 per centum of the meat we eat. It's safe to say that anyone concerned with the ideals of food production opposes factory farming on the partial grounds that it'southward harmful to animals. Animals held in confinement are denied access to the bones preconditions of happiness—the freedoms to move, make basic choices, have sex, and socialize. The fact that animals are transformed into the moral equivalent of mechanism, rather than respected every bit living creatures, will strike any sensible observer as fundamentally wrong. Those who promote free-range systems thus consistently exercise then at least partially on the grounds that animals should not be denied the opportunity to live satisfying lives.
Opposing factory farming on welfare grounds affirms an important premise: Thoughtful consumers do not want animals to exist needlessly hurt. That is, nosotros believe animals deserve living under conditions that let them the chance to seek happiness (which is not to say they won't become another creature's lunch). Accepting this premise means more than we might think. For one, it means we accept an obligation—again, in the spirit of being deliberate eaters—to consider the issue of animal welfare equally it plays out everywhere, fifty-fifty under gratis-range conditions.
And information technology's here where things get more complicated. Relatively speaking, gratuitous-range animals experience less impairment than do factory-farmed animals. Information technology's on this indicate that the vast majority of concerned consumers who choose free-range meat residue their case; if we're content to call back in these relative terms, there's actually not much to debate most. In fact, it's on this indicate that nearly every popular media written report on the benefits of complimentary-range farming screeches to a convenient halt. And why not? When information technology comes to farming methods and harm, free range is better.
But this position—the idea that free-range is automatically a responsible option simply because it's more attentive to animal welfare—is morally blurred. Better does not hateful acceptable. Consumers of free-range meat who oppose factory farming on welfare grounds (however partial) cannot escape an inconvenient question: Doesn't killing an animal we don't need plant the very thing that factory farming perpetuates—which is to say, harm? This, equally I come across information technology, is the gratuitous-range boundness.
The bars animal lives a mercifully short life of brutality and is dispatched; the free-range animal lives a much longer life full of relative freedom and is dispatched.
The predictable response to the conundrum is to note that in that location's a difference between raising an beast in hellish conditions and killing it and raising an beast in idyllic conditions and killing it. Certain there is. But such a divergence is less than it might seem, and inappreciably plenty to justify the radical distinction we draw between costless-range (proficient) and factory farming (bad). For one, in both cases the ultimate deprival of happiness is the ultimate reason for and result of the farm'due south beingness. That's a pretty strong common denominator.
Hither's another (admittedly experimental) way to consider the comparison between complimentary-range and confined. The confined beast lives a mercifully short life of brutality and is dispatched; the free-range brute lives a much longer life full of relative liberty and is dispatched. From the perspective of happiness lost, the latter scenario is more tragic. Subsequently all, catastrophe the life of a free-range beast living under relatively natural weather takes more happiness out of the world than does ending the life of miserable fauna suffering in confinement. Either way, what cannot be denied here is that whenever animals are raised to feed people, animals are harmed—something that opponents of factory farms vocally seek to avert.
A common rationalization for the killing of complimentary-range animals is that, from the animals' perspective, they've no thought of the futurity freedom denied them. They're pampered and coddled and and so, often painlessly, killed. What did they miss out on other than experiencing a great life on a farm that offered them both relative freedom and protection? How would they know what hitting them? And is nitpicking over such a philosophical trouble worth the cost of giving up the savory taste of meat? In social club to fully grasp these questions, we must consider an unusual concept: It's possible to damage an brute without pain information technology.
Farm animals have a sense of individual identity within time and space. They are beings with potential. To kill them is to erase that potential. It is to deny them a futurity of attempting to seek pleasance. It is to erase all the natural preconditions for happiness that a complimentary-range farm works so hard to approximate. It is, in essence, to do them the gravest harm.
Plus, the same argument—the notion that animals take no idea what they're missing—can be used to justify the most horrific forms of confinement on manufactory farms. Does a confined pig sit down around all day envying his undomesticated cousins? The fact that he doesn't know what he's never experienced has assuaged the guilt of many factory farmers.
In any case, past choosing death for an animal, humans choose the seduction of taste over an animal'southward correct to its future. Until someone can assuredly prove that this deprival does not plant unnecessary damage, I'll continue to view free-range farming and manufacturing plant farming equally gradations on the scale of cruelty.
Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2010/12/why-free-range-meat-isnt-much-better-than-factory-farmed/67569/
0 Response to "Differences in Beef Quality From Factory Farmed Cattle to Free Range Cattle"
Post a Comment