Beef Babies Rank Higher than Dairy Babies - Cowboy Cruelty

Where seldom is heard,

A discouraging word....

Well, this might be one of those times:

Seems that between 8 - 10% of newborn cattle may be left without the nourishment from their mothers. Their mothers may die at birth or have other issues that prevent her from feeding her young... So bottle feeding might be a very good alternative to nourish the little orphan. Or there's this method too:

Give the cow opportunities to accept the calf without restraint. Rubbing or tying the skinned hide (skin over the back along with the tail) of the nurse cow’s dead calf onto the grafted calf can transfer scent and encourage the cow to accept the new calf.

But Please Mr. Cowboy! Say it isn't so!!! How did the "nurse cow's" baby get "dead"?

NO! You didn't!!! You wouldn't!!!! FOR SHAME!!!!

*************************************

Those of us who are familiar with how worthless a male dairy calf is, aren't too surprised at the "class" structure even for farmed animals. Here, for the convenience of not having to feed the calf themselves, they kill a dairy cow's baby, so she can nurse a "beef" cow instead... And they trick her with the bloody hide from her own young.

I don't know about you --- But I think this is what ogres do...

Please, don't support any animal using industries - Go Vegan!

Agriprocessor - The Under Belly of the Meat Industry

This story will help further expose the under belly of the meat industry -

This is what happened at the Agriprocessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa. As usual, it's always the exploitation of the lowliest people hired to do the lowliest of jobs... These people, like the animals - are all "disposable".

From the accounts of one of the employees: "Americans want to go to the supermarket and find their meat neatly packaged. They don't want to hear about the 14-year-old girl from Guatemala who worked 12 hours a day, or the woman who was raped by her supervisor at the meat packing plant. They don't want to hear about the mothers who have "kill" water thrown on them or hear a young girl crying from the pain in her hands from operating power meat cutting shears."

And yes, the management of the slaughterhouse were arrested. Some serving prison time for bank fraud and others on probation for aiding and abetting a pattern of hiring undocumented aliens and violating child labor laws.

So there were human rights violations... as well as animal "abuse" ... But hey, it's a slaughterhouse! Does anyone really think these animals get romanced to the kill floor?

See Courting Dairy Cows - Then Eating Them - Rapacious Husbandry

And so to the consumer of these products... The flesh had from murder and made from the toil of the destitute - Do you understand now what the cost "cheap meat" is?

We each can feed ourselves just as economically - getting all the necessary calories, nourishment and "protein" from a plant based diet. For these reasons... And so many others -

Please, Go Vegan.

IF YOU LOVE SOMETHING, YOU DON'T KILL IT.

Jim Sinclair who has autism, helped organize Autism Network International. He has written some insightful and poetic essays regarding his autism, and his experiences living in a world in which he is "different". The ANI was founded not for parents or family, but rather for the people with autism. Their annual retreat attempts to provide a space in which they can interact with each other without the pressures of a world trying to find a "cure" for their differences. Sinclair is also for animal rights. He wrote the following poignant piece in response to Temple Grandin, who works for the meat industry by providing more efficient methods of animal slaughter. If you love something, you don’t kill it. I didn’t need to spend time in a squeeze box to learn that. Love is not killing. If you know what another being feels--not just how you feel when you touch it--then you know that living things want to remain alive. It doesn’t matter if they’re not afraid of death before they know what’s going to happen to them. In the moment when the killing happens, they know, and they want to stay alive. I have seen this, and I have felt death happen. I haven’t seen as much of death as someone who is obsessively drawn to slaughter factories, but I’ve seen enough to know. Life does not consent to be killed. I don’t need a Ph.D. in animal science to recognize that. Dying as a natural process is not the same as killing a healthy living creature. I have witnessed sudden death from injury, and gradual death from aging or disease. They’re not the same. (I have not witnessed deliberately inflicted death, because I will not stand by and allow killing to happen in my presence.) It’s irrelevant if a middle-aged scientist can say that she doesn’t fear death, that she understands it as a natural part of life. Almost all the beings whose lives she helps end are immature or just barely mature. Almost none of them are close to natural death. They’re not ready to die. If someone were to shoot or stab or electrocute the middle-aged scientist today, she might find that she’s not ready to die either. If you understand life, you know that it wants to continue. If you feel life throbbing under your touch, you know it’s desecration to set your hand to stop that living pulse. If you love something, you don’t kill it. There’s a special technique involved in tying a hangman’s noose so the victim is killed instantly by a broken neck, rather than slowly by strangulation. I suppose it’s part of a hangman’s professional expertise to learn to tie this knot properly. That expertise doesn’t make the hangman a caring or compassionate person. The hangman’s knot, the guillotine, the electric chair, the gas chamber, and the lethal injection were all designed to make deliberately inflicted death less painful to the victim. But I’ve never heard the inventors or the users of these technologies hailed as great humanitarians. I’ve never heard them praised for their great empathy toward the lives they’ve ended. Certainly it takes some ingenuity to invent new equipment. I’m a pretty smart person, but my expertise with knots is limited to being able to tie my shoes, to make a slip knot and a square knot. I tie these knots the way others taught me to tie them; I’ve never invented a new kind of knot by myself. If I were to try to design a knot that could quickly and painlessly kill someone, I’d never be able to figure it out. Whoever invented that knot had a type of mechanical creativity and skill that I don’t have. But if I did have it, I’d use it for other purposes. I wouldn’t need to invent a way to kill with a knot, because I would never be willing to participate in any way in killing a bound and defenseless person. Skill and ingenuity are not the same as empathy and caring. And love is not the same thing as killing. If you love something, you don’t kill it. It’s as simple as that. ************************************ Grandin claims to know what animals want... I dare say they want want their lives: Art, mental health and slaughterhouses - I see in pictures too.

VEGAN MUST AIR DAIRY 'S DIRTY LAUNDRY

I wasn't even going to blog about the Mercy For Animals dairy investigation. I figured enough had been said about it: ABC'sWorld News Tonight with Diane Sawyer and Nightline,CNN, and hundreds of newspapers, radio and television news networks from coast-to-coast featured the investigation, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and Forbes. But when my comments were restricted from being heard on the Dairy Goddess blog site I am compelled to reply here. However before doing so, I must say, in all my blogging - or communicating in any form -I've never attempted to silence my opponents viewpoint. I've invited everyone no matter what their opinions. I've never omitted, refused, trashed or deleted any one's input - Even if some comments are embarrassing to the author. I figure, if my position is worthy it will stand up to any critic and hold its own merit. I really don't know why my comments were snuffed by the Dairy Goddess blog. It's not like it costs the blog owner time, or money - or even noticeable bandwidth. And I wasn't untruthful, irrelevant, vulgar, disrespectful, brash or crude either... My guess is I might have come too close to airing the dirty laundry about animal agriculture and how it is not only unnecessary, but hinders our progress into the future. So on those comments that were censored - I post my rebut here: In response to Brett who said that he believes that God created mankind first and then animals, and that man should rule over them and care for them. I argue that this position has many flaws. Whose "gOd"? Whose bible? This hierarchical system of "domination" was written by men to benefit men, "high priests" and kings. And we can see a continuation of such a structure in today's economics where countless favors are granted to "shepherds" of factory farms and animal industry as a whole. There are many people who believe in the Christ man and see him as one whose philosophy was rooted in kindness. Many believe he was an Essene and walked with the Desert Fathers who lived on flat breads, fruits and seeds. And that the Christ man went into a rage at the Holy Temple because of the brutalizing and slaughter of the helpless. All this would be consistent to the teachings of a man who advocated non-violence and love to Others. Many believe that the caring of innocent nonhumans does not include feasting on their tender flesh... Actually, I pointed out to Brett that many refer to Genesis 1:29-30 (King James Version) "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so". Brett also said "We humans are on a different moral plane. In my world view, cattle’s purpose is food. God created them for us. Just like the hawk we need meat as well. I’m not a nutritionist, but I say look no farther than our teeth. Our incisors in the front were made to eat meat, while our molars in the back were made to chew. God made us to eat both." The idea that animals were created for the purpose of man's "use" calls to mind some other archaic views: Like other races were made for whites to use; And women were made for men... And the purpose of children was to be extra "hands" on the farm... etc. I hold that every living being has their own "purpose". That each of us owns but one prized thing and that is our lives. And to steal this possession for frivolous wants is indefensible. And I do not embrace this belief on any disputable, or possibly contrived words written on paper or stone, but because of a belief in the value of fairness and compassion. I pointed out that the hawk is following an imperative to survive... That biologically he has no alternative but to devour his prey. But that man, in contrast, can thrive on a plant based diet: From The American Dietetic Association: An appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. And my last comment to Brett was that I thought it was ironic that he should begin his argument based on the questionable "will" of a deity and conclude his position based in "science". But my science is: The Comparative Anatomy of Eating. by Milton R. Mills, M.D For isn't it possible that our ethics have evolved quicker than our dentures? Who bases their morals on molars anyway??? The only thing I failed to include was that no one will betray their faith if they refuse to kill or eat animals. The other participant that I never fully got to engage was writenowbiz, who thought procedures done to cows should be acceptable because: "if consent is needed then we must immediately stop spaying and neutering pets – " I say: There's a world of difference between a procedure that is done to protect an animal from harm... And one that is done to further the financial benefit of the "owner", no matter how benign. S/he also said "It seems what the view of wrong is seems a bigger issue. To you it’s wrong to use animals – to the majority of the population it isn’t." And I found this very troubling as I don't subscribe (and with good reason) to what mob rule might endorse. Just because a large group thinks or acts a certain way, does not make that way correct. Justifications that anchor themselves in crowd-think or "tradition" fall in line with ideas that "might makes right". And I sincerely don't believe that's so. Finally, writenowbiz concluded: "No matter what we eat – I don’t see many oats or soy or carrots jumping onto a plate by themselves either – they too must die for people to live." And this is similar to the time-worn "theory" that plants feel pain. To which I respond that even if someone is concerned about the "suffering of plants" they would still cause less harm by eating the plants directly, rather than fattening nonhumans in order to eat them. And that there is a world of difference between the accidental deaths of animals during crop harvesting and the deliberate breeding and slaughter of 10 billions of animal for the sake of "meat". I also interjected that we should be exploring greenhouse expansions, vertical farms, urban gardening, barge cropping technology and humanure just to name just a few alternatives to animal eating. I concluded that our differing views divide us into those who expoloit captive subjects... And others who are repelled by such an idea. And that if one truly wishes to strive for a better world... Peace begins on your plate. photo: Washday- my backyard