5 ms·

Paying more of course doesn't improve animals' conditions automatically. Improved conditions would most likely increase the price. But even with quite hefty pr

Paying more of course doesn't improve animals' conditions automatically. Improved conditions would most likely increase the price. But even with quite hefty price increse, the conditions will still be a living hell. And for an individual eating animals and animal produce is about the most environmentally harmful thing conducted regularly regardless of the price.

jghn 2y ago
This is a good thing to point out. I source most of my meat and eggs from local small farms where I know that the animals are raised in good conditions. Partially because I think it tastes better, partially for the ethics of it. Because of that, I pay more. But if one goes to the local supermarket, it's easy to find upbranded labels charging more for who knows what. Probably mostly to fund their marketing budget.
stared 2y ago
For some products, like free-range eggs, there is the possibility of choosing more ethical options. With many others, the supply chain is opaque, and paying more gives absolutely no guarantee of better conditions. The only way to be sure is if you know a local farmer personally. So, I think there should be much better regulations about minimal living conditions (though this would face strong opposition). Additionally, it would be wonderful if every animal-derived product had a recent photo (within the last year) from the exact farm of origin. It would be even better if every food product included a CO2e per calorie estimate (see e.g. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore).
- jghn 2y ago
  > The only way to be sure is if you know a local farmer personally This isn't as hard as people make it seem. I live in a city. Yet I participate in a local livestock farm share, the farm is about an hour away. They allow members & prospective members to come in and tour the farm, see the conditions, and their processes. They work to be transparent about everything that's going on. It took me about 10 minutes of googling 15 years ago to find it. The only extra work I've had to do since is once a month go about 30 minutes out of my way to the local pickup spot Yes, this isn't feasible for every American. Nor could the scale of small farms accommodate that. Yes, it's a luxury. But still, people discuss these things like it's fantasy land and it really isn't.
  - myself248 2y ago
    > Yes, this isn't feasible for every American. Nor could the scale of small farms accommodate that. Not immediately, but if the food-buying public started to prefer doing things that way, eventually the industry would reshape itself to accommodate. Over the span of decades, I figure.
  - aaronbaugher 2y ago
    Yes, it's more possible than most people realize. Where I live outside a town of 40,000, everyone could still buy meat and other food locally if they wanted to. Most just don't, and so many of the small farms have disappeared. But enough remain for everyone who's interested, and the farmers I know would like to sell more directly if they had the customers. (One problem is that farmers make terrible marketers and salesmen, generally.)
- jampekka 2y ago
  > For some products, like free-range eggs, there is the possibility of choosing more ethical options. There sure are, e.g. anything plant-based! ;) > Additionally, it would be wonderful if every animal-derived product had a recent photo (within the last year) from the exact farm of origin. It would be even better if every food product included a CO2e per calorie estimate (see e.g. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore). Produce animal welfare and environmental impact are orthogonal, and maybe even somewhat opposed. But both would indeed be better.
  - speleding 2y ago
    Meat from free-range chickens has an ecological footprint about 4 times higher (they grow slower, live longer, so need more water and feed, while excreting more methane, and use up more land). It would indeed be interesting if packaging from supermarkets put some estimate of environmental footprint on the packaging. I doubt it will happen: It would thoroughly confuse many consumers that the product with the highest price has the worst environmental impact, and could reduce sales of their highest margin products.
    - tw43265543645 2y ago
      That's considering that you only use the land for chickens, and that you get your feed from elsewhere. Multi-use land solves that problem, and can also reduce the need for feed (e.g. chickens in an orchard). Those systems can work really well when implemented & maintained by someone with the necessary knowledge and experience, and drastically reduce resource usage. However, most of those systems are not easily automatable, and thus require more human labour, which makes them more expensive overall (this might be solvable with todays AI & robots, but the resources needed to buid, use & maintain the robots would probably wipe out any resources gains). But they'd win the packaging war you mention hands down ;)
      - speleding 2y ago
        A chicken needs 4 m2 per bird to be called free range (in the EU), a battery chicken needs less space than a sheet of paper, and they can be stacked. Then you need twice as much land to grow their feed, or more if you don't want to use intensive agriculture. This is not something you can realistically offset with multi-use land usage. I don't particularly care whether people choose to let the environment or animal welfare prevail, but the choice should be well-informed.
titmouse 2y ago
I've seen suggestions that livestock can actually be a key component to carbon sequestration, if done correctly. I think it was mentioned in the documentary Kiss the Ground, narrated by Woody Harrelson, but I may be wrong. I believe the gist was that no-till farming and managed grazing helps to save the topsoil, sequester more carbon dioxide, and make something like cattle farming effectively carbon-negative (ie, they're actually helping to mitigate climate change). I'd recommend watching if you haven't, it shows some compelling examples such as a farmer who's the only one in his area farming this way, and he's also the only one who's having successful harvests while being environmentally conscious. Also, farmed livestock don't automatically exist in a "living hell". Factory farms, yeah, but a properly-managed ranch should have happy, healthy animals.
- shlant 2y ago
  > make something like cattle farming effectively carbon-negative The situations in which this is the case (which are oversimplified by the doc) are so specific and small scale that to think they will address the environmental impact without acknowledging the insane, unsustainable demand for meat is magical thinking. People love to point to ideas like this and stuff like feeding cows seaweed to avoid the reality of the dire need for significant shifts in our consumption behaviors. > but a properly-managed ranch should have happy, healthy animals. again - the percentage of meat that comes from these conditions is so small as to be virtually irrelevant in the context of the animal agriculture industry
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    That's what they said about solar power but year after year the industry grows.
    - shlant 2y ago
      I think the comparison of an industry of solar panels and batteries to one of the harvesting of living animals is not a very valuable one. Just as one example: you can improve the efficiency of solar panel and/or battery technology and the manufacturing processes but you can't do the same with cows. You could however move away from the breeding of living animals and instead improve something like lab grown meat which might have more overlap with technologies like solar panels. You have to recognize that the scale of demand for meat REQUIRES the conditions you find in factory farms. You do not get to keep the same demand while having it all come from Happy Healthy Farm™ for a wide variety of reasons.
mistercheph 2y ago
Eat your grain and don't pollute peon! No pork chops for you in New World!
com2kid 2y ago
> But even with quite hefty price increse, the conditions will still be a living hell. Local farmers markets sell animals that had quite happy lives. Some farms even have live webcams where you can check in on the animals 24/7. Honestly the prices aren't always that much higher, especially for certain cuts, with prices being at worst, about the same as higher end grocery stores, and at best, halfway between fancy grocery stores and a regular supermarket.
slothtrop 2y ago
> conditions will still be a living hell I've seen what better farms look like and I disagree. It most closely matches what consumers want and expect. Suffering is non-zero because it necessitate slaughter, but not as egregious as in commercial agriculture. In other words, there is a threshold of suffering consumers are ok with.

jghn 2y ago

This is a good thing to point out. I source most of my meat and eggs from local small farms where I know that the animals are raised in good conditions. Partially because I think it tastes better, partially for the ethics of it. Because of that, I pay more. But if one goes to the local supermarket, it's easy to find upbranded labels charging more for who knows what. Probably mostly to fund their marketing budget.

stared 2y ago

For some products, like free-range eggs, there is the possibility of choosing more ethical options. With many others, the supply chain is opaque, and paying more gives absolutely no guarantee of better conditions. The only way to be sure is if you know a local farmer personally. So, I think there should be much better regulations about minimal living conditions (though this would face strong opposition). Additionally, it would be wonderful if every animal-derived product had a recent photo (within the last year) from the exact farm of origin. It would be even better if every food product included a CO2e per calorie estimate (see e.g. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore).

jghn 2y ago
> The only way to be sure is if you know a local farmer personally This isn't as hard as people make it seem. I live in a city. Yet I participate in a local livestock farm share, the farm is about an hour away. They allow members & prospective members to come in and tour the farm, see the conditions, and their processes. They work to be transparent about everything that's going on. It took me about 10 minutes of googling 15 years ago to find it. The only extra work I've had to do since is once a month go about 30 minutes out of my way to the local pickup spot Yes, this isn't feasible for every American. Nor could the scale of small farms accommodate that. Yes, it's a luxury. But still, people discuss these things like it's fantasy land and it really isn't.
- myself248 2y ago
  > Yes, this isn't feasible for every American. Nor could the scale of small farms accommodate that. Not immediately, but if the food-buying public started to prefer doing things that way, eventually the industry would reshape itself to accommodate. Over the span of decades, I figure.
- aaronbaugher 2y ago
  Yes, it's more possible than most people realize. Where I live outside a town of 40,000, everyone could still buy meat and other food locally if they wanted to. Most just don't, and so many of the small farms have disappeared. But enough remain for everyone who's interested, and the farmers I know would like to sell more directly if they had the customers. (One problem is that farmers make terrible marketers and salesmen, generally.)
jampekka 2y ago
> For some products, like free-range eggs, there is the possibility of choosing more ethical options. There sure are, e.g. anything plant-based! ;) > Additionally, it would be wonderful if every animal-derived product had a recent photo (within the last year) from the exact farm of origin. It would be even better if every food product included a CO2e per calorie estimate (see e.g. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore). Produce animal welfare and environmental impact are orthogonal, and maybe even somewhat opposed. But both would indeed be better.
- speleding 2y ago
  Meat from free-range chickens has an ecological footprint about 4 times higher (they grow slower, live longer, so need more water and feed, while excreting more methane, and use up more land). It would indeed be interesting if packaging from supermarkets put some estimate of environmental footprint on the packaging. I doubt it will happen: It would thoroughly confuse many consumers that the product with the highest price has the worst environmental impact, and could reduce sales of their highest margin products.
  - tw43265543645 2y ago
    That's considering that you only use the land for chickens, and that you get your feed from elsewhere. Multi-use land solves that problem, and can also reduce the need for feed (e.g. chickens in an orchard). Those systems can work really well when implemented & maintained by someone with the necessary knowledge and experience, and drastically reduce resource usage. However, most of those systems are not easily automatable, and thus require more human labour, which makes them more expensive overall (this might be solvable with todays AI & robots, but the resources needed to buid, use & maintain the robots would probably wipe out any resources gains). But they'd win the packaging war you mention hands down ;)
    - speleding 2y ago
      A chicken needs 4 m2 per bird to be called free range (in the EU), a battery chicken needs less space than a sheet of paper, and they can be stacked. Then you need twice as much land to grow their feed, or more if you don't want to use intensive agriculture. This is not something you can realistically offset with multi-use land usage. I don't particularly care whether people choose to let the environment or animal welfare prevail, but the choice should be well-informed.

titmouse 2y ago

I've seen suggestions that livestock can actually be a key component to carbon sequestration, if done correctly. I think it was mentioned in the documentary Kiss the Ground, narrated by Woody Harrelson, but I may be wrong. I believe the gist was that no-till farming and managed grazing helps to save the topsoil, sequester more carbon dioxide, and make something like cattle farming effectively carbon-negative (ie, they're actually helping to mitigate climate change). I'd recommend watching if you haven't, it shows some compelling examples such as a farmer who's the only one in his area farming this way, and he's also the only one who's having successful harvests while being environmentally conscious. Also, farmed livestock don't automatically exist in a "living hell". Factory farms, yeah, but a properly-managed ranch should have happy, healthy animals.

shlant 2y ago
> make something like cattle farming effectively carbon-negative The situations in which this is the case (which are oversimplified by the doc) are so specific and small scale that to think they will address the environmental impact without acknowledging the insane, unsustainable demand for meat is magical thinking. People love to point to ideas like this and stuff like feeding cows seaweed to avoid the reality of the dire need for significant shifts in our consumption behaviors. > but a properly-managed ranch should have happy, healthy animals. again - the percentage of meat that comes from these conditions is so small as to be virtually irrelevant in the context of the animal agriculture industry
- ipaddr 2y ago
  That's what they said about solar power but year after year the industry grows.
  - shlant 2y ago
    I think the comparison of an industry of solar panels and batteries to one of the harvesting of living animals is not a very valuable one. Just as one example: you can improve the efficiency of solar panel and/or battery technology and the manufacturing processes but you can't do the same with cows. You could however move away from the breeding of living animals and instead improve something like lab grown meat which might have more overlap with technologies like solar panels. You have to recognize that the scale of demand for meat REQUIRES the conditions you find in factory farms. You do not get to keep the same demand while having it all come from Happy Healthy Farm™ for a wide variety of reasons.

mistercheph 2y ago

Eat your grain and don't pollute peon! No pork chops for you in New World!

com2kid 2y ago

> But even with quite hefty price increse, the conditions will still be a living hell. Local farmers markets sell animals that had quite happy lives. Some farms even have live webcams where you can check in on the animals 24/7. Honestly the prices aren't always that much higher, especially for certain cuts, with prices being at worst, about the same as higher end grocery stores, and at best, halfway between fancy grocery stores and a regular supermarket.

slothtrop 2y ago

> conditions will still be a living hell I've seen what better farms look like and I disagree. It most closely matches what consumers want and expect. Suffering is non-zero because it necessitate slaughter, but not as egregious as in commercial agriculture. In other words, there is a threshold of suffering consumers are ok with.