 |
Re: [RC] slaughter vs consumption - dlbruno1This discussion makes me think of the time that my son raised a pig (to sell for the meat) as a project for his high school agriculture class. Rule 1 - was not to name the pig - that renders one with a certain amount of attachment. The pig was treated well - fed well but all with one purpose in mind. When the pig weighed approximately 300 lbs the butcher was called. My son's one concern was that the other animals (horse and dog) did not witness the demise of said pig - the dog and horse were put where they would not witness the act. (I have to smile when I tell that part of the story because I did not expect this sentiment from my 15 year old son.)
Since the meat was to be used for food, the butcher did not use "chemicals" to put it down.
Debra Bruno Owner
H orseSimple"Fun"damentals for the Equestrian & the Equestrienne PO Box 7732 Riverside, CA 92513
Phone: 800-743-1648 Fax: 800-743-1648 info@HorseSimpleonline.com ----- Original Message ---- From: "heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Karen Everhart <rainbowmeadowsranch@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:30:20 AM Subject: RE: [RC] slaughter vs consumption Indeed. Please define "humane" and "ethical."
A captive bolt in the brain is certainly "humane." And to suggest that it is unethical for humans to consume horses is biased at best.
|