The Noise of the Pigs
Another update. Crumb Trail has a post on the pigs comment. He points out something –
It’s only funny if you know pigs. They scream for the fun of it, to socialize. Even the wild (feral) pigs that infest the woods around here scream at one another, other animals, the sky, the moon, whatever. They’re vocal like coyotes. Two pigs, or coyotes, can make enough noise in enough distinct ways that you might think there were dozens of them involved in some life and death drama unless you knew their ways. They scream more when they find something yummy than they do when they are being eaten alive by a predator.
Fair point. Pigs do scream a lot – I do know that. I did think of it while writing the comment – that pigs just are vocal, that they scream for anything or nothing. I thought of mentioning that, but the trouble is, the way I remember it (and I may remember it wrong – memory is not infallible) the screaming was concentrated at the end of the chute. So I didn’t mention it, lest I get myself entangled in one of my usual tangles of qualifications and clauses. But Crumb Trail does have a point.
But I’m not sure I think it’s what you might call a knockdown point. The fact remains that the pigs were just sent down a straight open chute instead of a twisting closed one of the kind that Grandin designs, and that they did have time to see hear and smell what was happening. I don’t see why that’s either necessary or useful, or why it shouldn’t be done differently. Therefore I don’t see the point of this part:
Those completley detached from the real world – from nature, food, birth, death and material reality in general – make consistently bad decisions due to lack of information and understanding. There’s nothing amusing about that since they do great harm while feeling innocent. This lack of grounding in reality, detachment from the world, is correctable like any other form of ignorance. In a very real sense they choose to remain ignorant by looking away from contrary information, preferring to see only things that reinforce their biases or perhaps being too emotionally engaged to become intellectually engaged?
Great harm. Hmm. I’m doing great harm by suggesting that humane methods of slaughter are preferable to inhumane ones? Why, exactly? And how? And where does ‘feeling innocent’ come in? And I’ll tell you one thing. If there’s anything I’m not detached from, it’s food. I love the stuff, I’m deeply attached to it, and I spend a lot of time cuddling and embracing it and making it part of my life. So there.
Well, I got the post from Norm, a veg and an advocate of a meatless world, which changes the context a bit. And I know about Grandin, have posted about her, and understand slaughter issues down to the blood chemistry level, but that would only be apparent to those who have traveled the Crumb Trail for some time. I updated the post with pointers to some of the previous work.
Ah, right. Well I’m a veg myself, and an advocate of at least a more meatless world – but I took the slaughterhouse point to be in principle independent of that. But I certainly don’t understand slaughterhouse issues down to the blood chemistry level, so thanks for the corrective, input, etc.
I took the slaughterhouse point to be in principle indendent of my own practices too — and I’m a ‘veg’ ;) who would advocate a more meatless world – if I weren’t set against evangelism.
I can’t find any Crumb Trail posts about Temple Grandin other than I am what I think and do, which apart from calling her “a living legend among knowledgeable livestock producers and associated academic groups” which I take to be complimentary, is about her autism, not about slaughterhouse issues at any level.
If you’re interested, I’ve posted some useful phrases for arguing a conservative case. “Those completley detached from the real world” isn’t in there, but “it’s time to get off your high horse, say goodbye to cloud-cuckoo land and start living in the real world – like the rest of us!” is.
Thanks, Dave, those are useful phrases. They have a certain – how shall I say – piquancy, lacking in the comparable phrases one hears on this side of the puddle.
It is kind of amusing to be accused of being detached from nature, death, food, material reality in general. How would one go about that, exactly, I wonder. I had no idea any of that was voluntary.
To say that Grandin is a legend is a simple fact of ranching. She doesn’t just design slaughter facilities, she designs livestock handing equipment and facilities of all sorts. It’s not new knowledge, it’s the sort of thing that a semi-literate cowboy can tell you about and may well own or use some of her equipment. Her ideas have permeated the industry over the years and even when the equipment doesn’t have her brand on it it has her influence.
She originated many of these ideas but isn’t the sole advocate. If you read a few of those posts rather than just doing a search on Grandin you might see something useful about animal handling techniques and why they matter. It isn’t just something that matters at slaughter, it matters on an every day basis for animal and livestock operator health. This matters in many ways not least for the economic impact. The cost of treating sickness, the loss of production and diminished quality are all powerful motivators even if there was no concern for the feelings of animals, and stress is a major cause of sickness.
If you have interest you can google about for livestock handling techniques and stress. They may not say Grandin anywhere in the text but her influence will be apparent if you have already absorbed her work.
Thanks for your links back40 (sorry, I don’t know your name). My interest has been whetted by your and Ophelia’s remarks. But, for now, I’m looking for a way in, and ‘read all my blog from the beginning’ isn’t a way in.
I’m sure all you say is true, but if it is, why does anyone run abattoirs any other way? Ophelia implied that in her experience, they do.
I shall, however, read more of you and Google as you suggest.
Dave,
To clarify, my visit to the slaughterhouse was about twenty years ago. I know from the little I’ve read about Grandin’s work that some slaughterhouses have improved their methods because of that work – I just don’t know how fast and far that change has spread. I think I read an article that said it was a small minority of slaughterhouses that were using her designs – but that was several years ago, and it may well be that change has been rapid. I hope so.
Zookeepers know a fair bit, in an experiential sort of way, about animal stress – to their sorrow. We’ve all had animals die in our hands while they were being restrained for veterinary treatment. They’re sick or injured, you try to fix the problem, and end up killing them. Not fun.
Why would slaughterhouses make changes to processes motivated by concerns for animal welfare?
They are businesses, large scale and high-throughput, and make decisions based purely on maximising profit.
For instance, they may reduce packing density if the improvement in animal health leads to greater yield – they won’t do it just because it is the morally right thing to do!
It is legislation which holds them to ethical account, and even then not very well.
Well, for one thing, Grandin’s work does offer a lot of evidence that less-stressful slaughter methods do improve the quality of the resulting meat, so there is a profit-related motive.
And one can think of other plausible reasons. Bad versus good publicity, media pressure, that sort of thing. Also worker health and safety.
But if your basic point is that the market isn’t the place to go for ethical motivations, I certainly don’t disagree.
The public obviously don’t worry too much about how their meat is slaughtered now, so I don’t think there’ll be a publicity advantage.
As for quality of meat, I doubt again, that they much care – the issue is high volume low cost production.
Sure. I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with…? Maybe you’re not, but just pointing something out. No, slaughterhouses (or their owners or managers) aren’t necessarily inherently motivated to change methods, but on the other hand some of them have changed. And pressure can end up in legislation. Etc.