English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

So they don't have to live in those conditions for so long.

2007-10-05 17:34:32 · 16 answers · asked by rome 5 in Food & Drink Vegetarian & Vegan

avatarofyourdreams, I live in Colorado and I know what you say is true. I asked the question, the way I did because the people on this site keep saying over and over what deplorable conditions cattle are raised in. But other then on the peta site none of them have probably seen a cow.

2007-10-05 18:02:10 · update #1

16 answers

Who says that Cattle raised for meat live in horrible conditions?

Have you ever visited the South Western United States?

Beef Cows have full run of Akers and Akers of land… They roam and live “Natural” lives until they are rounded up and taken to slaughter…

The abattoirs are not happy places… They crowd the cows together because it is most efficient to use as little space as possible and I deplore the general conditions of the abattoir … But Meat Cow’s live long’ish and VERY happy lives wandering around being cows…

Drive through Cattle Country in Arizona and it is just endless open land as far as the eye can see with cows wandering the hills and eating the plains grass…

Wandering from one end of the ranch to the other… miles of wandering each day… to get from the fresh areas and back to the watering holes that the ranchers provide for them…

When natural feed is limited the ranchers provide all types of good food for them!

They let the cows breed as they will and round up the baby’s after they are weaned to either join the herd or to be sold off…

I have not seen a “Cruel” ranch in the states of Arizona, New Mexico, California, or Utah… And I have traveled extensively in each!

My x’s family had property in Northern Arizona and I became friends with a bunch of ranchers that only had their animal’s wellbeing at heart!!

Dude… Stop believing what the self serving scum bag’s like P.E.T.A. tell you…

Not all farmers, ranchers, and breeders are cruel to animals!!

2007-10-05 17:54:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 7

Actually a lot fo GOOD organic farms have this opportunity. One organic valley farm I personally visited had 25 cows and over 100 acres of land. The cows were milk cows, and never recieved hormones. A cow naturally produces enough milk to nurse 4 calves and so the calves are allowed to nurse whenever they feel, and the cows are still milked. However being a vegetarian you make the choice to drink milk. Vegans do not, no matter the living conditions. Eatting meat however, I would never do no matter the living conditions. Just as I would not murder a human and chow down I would not do that to an animal.

2016-05-17 07:35:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You might have heard this already, but my family raises cattle. Let me tell you, they are not mistreated, and they don't live in deplorable conditions. They have acres and acres to roam and are fed high quality grain all accompanied with high dollar veterinary health care. To top it all off, when they are slaughtered, their death is instant.

This might not always be the case. I'm sure that McDonald's cattle farms are not as generous with their cattle, but most places treat their cattle very well.

Now, veal is another story. The way veal is raised is terrible.

I became a vegetarian for health reasons, and I never really cared for the taste of meat. I think alot of people who say all cattle are treated so badly have either never seen a farm or have only seen one. The people who treat their livestock badly are the minority.

2007-10-05 18:44:17 · answer #3 · answered by lindsey d 3 · 4 1

Boy are you misinformed. To be fair, the first two years of a beef cow's life is pretty good. Then the cows are moved into feedlots to be fattened up for slaughter. After that, their lives are unremitting misery.

But a veal calf's life is unremitting misery from birth to death. They are crated, fed a nutritionally deficient sludge, and are tethered so they cannot take one step forward or back. This is so their flesh remains pale and tender.

You should not eat either food, as both are products of brutality.

2007-10-06 15:27:33 · answer #4 · answered by VeggieTart -- Let's Go Caps! 7 · 1 0

Veal, properly, is a deacon.

If you do not know, a deacon is a bull calf. Deacons that become veal are born into dairy heards. Because they are dairy type cattle they will never be good beef cattle. Because they are bull calves they will never be dairy cows.
The cows are bred so that they will produce milk (freshen) and as soon as a deacon is weaned it is ready for slaughter.
So, sorry. It is not a question of conditions for the cows, or for the deacons.
It is a condition of not needing another tough rangy scrawny bull that never grows fast enough to be of value as a beef beast.
If they were beef type beasts, then we could de-nut them and sell them as steers to the beef producers. Instead we sell them as soon as they are done suckling, they are not worth trying to grow into beef.
The idea of beef type cattle being held in small cages and force fed milk is total baloney.(Hee, Hee. Good pun!!!)
---------
I bet you can not tell me how many cattle live in the USA.

2007-10-05 22:08:02 · answer #5 · answered by Y!A-FOOL 5 · 0 2

Oh boy, bad question to ask in this section.

I am vegetarian and I have seen cows, pigs, goats, sheep, chickens, etc. Some of my uncles were farmers. I have seen chickens get their heads chopped off. One of the events that lead to my vegetarianism when seeing a dead baby pig with flies on it when I was a child.

Having some familiarity with farms does not always make someone like it.

2007-10-05 21:42:56 · answer #6 · answered by majnun99 7 · 1 0

You're woefully misinformed; cows live in great conditions, open fields, nice stalls at night, etc the conditions for veal are far worse; the young calf is literally kept in place, confined in a tiny pen to prevent it from moving and developing muscles so the meat remains tender. That is horrible.

2007-10-06 05:38:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

That's like asking if it's better to molest a child a little bit instead of a lot.

Ridiculous! This kind of "lesser of two evils" questions serves no good purpose. How about people just stop consuming cow milk (since it is a major contributor to cancer and heart disease) and then we don't have to have veal at all (since it is an industry that was INVENTED as a way to make a buck off all the baby cows that are a by-product of the dairy industry).

Then while you're at it you can go ahead and stop eating any kind of cow all together since it is a) gross and b) unhealthy and c) bad for the environment and d) unsanitary.

2007-10-05 17:43:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7 6

That's a very interesting way of looking at it. Supporting the veal industry just causes more problems. Wouldn't it be better not to eat either?

2007-10-05 19:24:02 · answer #9 · answered by Peaches 3 · 3 3

cows raised for veal are not treated any better.
they are kept in small living quarters where they can't even turn around.
and they are malnutritioned so they won't develop muscle which would make their meat too tough.

2007-10-06 04:01:03 · answer #10 · answered by gertie 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers