She's also a proponent of mechanically-separated meat ("pink slime") — the animal was killed, so isn't it more respectful to use as much of it as possible?
Related aside: I used to raise beef cattle, and the amount of products cow "stuff"/byproducts goes into is amazing. There's nearly nothing simply thrown out (except blood, I suppose).
Was pretty sure that blood is used for something, but still had to websearch for it in spite of working at a slaughterhouse. Linked the result (0).
Killing itself is actually a very interesting process. Cow is led through a series of corridors to a single-cow pen resembling their feeding spots in a cowshed. It puts it's head trough a familiar U-shaped opening (or has to be pushed a little by remotely controllable hind side wall/gate). There it get's calmed down by a slaughterman with a license to kill. He then grabs a big, ceiling mounted, pneumatic bolt gun and skillfully shoots the cow in a specific spot on the forehead (bolt retracts after the shot). This stuns the cow and it literally falls to the ground with it's legs straightened out(1).
After stunning, the whole single pen rotates on the back-front (in relation to cow position) axis, by 90 degrees. What was the side wall becomes floor and what was the floor becomes the wall (it's L-shaped). There the difficult part starts. A man in the other room has only seconds to tie a chain to a hind leg and lift the cow before the cow starts kicking. The smoother the process, the more time there is. Halfway trough the lifting it is paused to stab the cow in the main artery, so the cow can momentarily bleed out and as a consequence die.
This other room is a place of carnage with floor covered in blood, most of it flowing trough floor grates into big tanks on the floor below. It would be pretty problematic to have the cow aproach by itself if there was only one room with floor covered in blood. Cows still smell what's happening but this L-shaped flipper helps keep a resemblance of normality.
1: There is a phrase in Polish "Wyciągnąć kopyta" meaning "to die", which literally means "to straighten out one's hooves". Used mostly in books or by older people. I saw it used in books for many years before I witnessed it in reality at work. I guess the people of the past were much more aware of where the meat comes from.
That's a pretty story, and does not match North American practices. They vary tremendously, and extend well into the demonic.
I'm sure there is at least once slaughterhouse in Europe doing that. I am skeptical that it uniformly matches European practices, but I'm not well informed on that topic.
Is there anyone who thinks we shouldn't use the entire animal if we do kill it? As I understood it, most of the backlash against "pink slime" (lean finely textured beef)* came from the misconception that it was artificial or low quality. In reality, it's just had all the fat removed and been ground particularly fine.
*mechanically separated meat is something different, composed primarily of non-meat carcass material. Mechanically separated beef is not allowed for human consumption due to the risk of made cow disease. Mechanically separated pork is still part of hot dogs and similar meat products.
> As I understood it, most of the backlash against "pink slime" (lean finely textured beef)* came from the misconception that it was artificial or low quality.
Also it tastes bad, but that's mostly due to texture rather than taste-bud-response per se, so it presumably works fine in applications where that doesn't matter.
> Is there anyone who thinks we shouldn't use the entire animal if we do kill it?
As someone who is actively in favor of factory farming, I also don't see any reason not use every piece of the animal that can be productively used - to do otherwise would be, by definition, pointlessly inefficient.
My point was about suffering + killing of the animal. What happens after was irrelevant. 'pink slime' was irrelevant, and 'disrespectful' was a absurd term. But they move attention from the issue of suffering + killing.
FTR once you killed an animal it makes no sense not to use it fully so I agree with you - but that wasn't my point, had nothing to do with it.
No, they don't. They highlight the issue of killing. The animal is being killed, so it makes moral and practical sense to exploit the carcass as much as possible.
I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp, unless your entire premise is that killing animals for human use is innately immoral and unacceptable. To that, I simply disagree.
Using the carcass 100% or 0% after death will not affect by a jot the fact the animal was killed, nor erase in the slightest any suffering it went through. If an animal died in agony then how the carcass was used does not erase any of that suffering. That's my point you seem unable to grasp.
FYI I do not necessarily see killing an animal as wrong, though you want me to as that would fit me into a neat cliche of vegan or hippy or whatever you can file me away under (or so ISTM). People aren't necessarily that simple.
Who says there was terrible suffering? Modern slaughterhouses minimize this possibility (Grandin's legacy), and 'bespoke' slaughtering effectively eliminates it in my direct experience. One day it's munching away on some sweet feed and then BANG cow/pig/etc. heaven.
The same is true with ethical hunting — I'd far rather take a well-constructed bullet to the boiler room and quickly fade out than have predators ripping me up while I'm still alive.
The point of fully exploiting the carcass is recognizing that a life was taken, regardless of suffering, and choosing to make as much use of it as possible. Nothing I've written is intended to minimize suffering or other inhumane treatment.
> — I'd far rather take a well-constructed bullet to the boiler room and quickly fade out than
I'd want the same.
> The point of fully exploiting the carcass is recognizing that a life was taken, regardless of suffering, and choosing to make as much use of it as possible
While economically that makes sense, that is a money/efficiency issue not an ethical one. So I agree fiscally but say that has no ethical bearing.
> While economically that makes sense, that is a money/efficiency issue not an ethical one. So I agree fiscally but say that has no ethical bearing.
All else equal, extracting the maximum food products from an animal should reduce the number we have to slaughter. It would be absurd, but if we only processed half the animal, we would need to slaughter twice as many to provide the same amount of meat.
In reality, I think it's not that simple because more efficient processes lower the cost of meat which increases demand.
> She's also a proponent of mechanically-separated meat
how is that relevant?
> the animal was killed, so isn't it more respectful to use as much of it as possible
'respectful' - using that word about an animal you've killed is self-deceit. The animal is dead, and when it was alive it had no concept of 'respect'. Deluded talk.
I also don't get the point of your related aside. My post was about animal suffering, not use of the carcass so it looks like you're changing the subject.
I'm not sure I can adequately express how I feel about morally exploiting animals (because that's what it is: beef cattle exist to be slaughtered and their bodies exploited, that is their entire purpose and why they exist) to someone who at least appears to be vegan.
Similarly, as a hunter what I consider "respectful" you appear to consider "deluded." Arguing over that seems like arguing over religion and isn't something I'm interested in doing today. Have a great Friday!
Related aside: I used to raise beef cattle, and the amount of products cow "stuff"/byproducts goes into is amazing. There's nearly nothing simply thrown out (except blood, I suppose).