Timestamps:

0:00 - Introduction

04:12 - Pigs

23:19 - Egg-Laying Hens

30:49 - Broiler (Meat) Chickens

41:11 - Turkeys

45:29 - Ducks

53:03 - Cows

1:11:07 - Sheep

1:17:19 - Goats

1:21:57 - Fish

1:26:46 - Rabbits

1:29:24 - Minks

1:30:55 - Foxes

1:32:23 - Dogs

1:37:58 - Horses

1:40:43 - Camels

1:42:16 - Mice

1:43:51 - Exotic Animals

1:46:07 - Seals & Dolphins

1:49:16 - Conclusion

1:55:47 - Closing Credits

This was the doc that sold me fully on going vegan.

If you like meat, learn more about where it comes and the practices you are promoting to access it, then decide whether or not to continue.

    • 90u9y8gb9t86vytv97g [they/them]
      hexagon
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      Your individual choices are meaningless.

      This isn't true, evidenced clearly by the huge rise in vegan products being introduced in grocery stores, restaurants, fast food places, etc.

      The dairy industry is crashing for a real reason, and not because the dairy producers are happy to let it go.

      You're right that corporations will push veganism before taking personal responsibility of course, which is why the push should be against factory farming and massive meat and dairy subsidies first, not blaming meat eaters on an individual level.

      Vegans spending the energy they spend trying to get people “woke” to industrial ag on organizing for humane alternatives to capitalism would accomplish 100x more for your goals

      This is part of veganism.

      My ideal is if you feel strongly enough about the ethical and environmental concerns to be vegan but then do nothing to inform others, you don't really believe in it that strongly.

      This documentary is literally exposing the factory farming industry, no part of it blames individuals. That's why I love it and think people should give it a watch.

    • Saint [he/him]
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 years ago

      If there was a company slaughtering humans and selling their meat, my first reaction wouldn't be "Aw well, I might as well consume human flesh, they'll probably get subsidies if I don't anyway."

        • HectorCotylus [he/him,any]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          How often do you see the anti-war movement committing major acts of sabotage?

            • LaBellaLotta [any]
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 years ago

              Yes and we must only ever take the most direct route to solving a problem fucking brain dead take dude

            • Saint [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Edit: I’m being cute here but it’s a bullshit comparison because the act of cannibalism is so morally repulsive that the scenario of human meat farming is absurd and impossible. In this scenario our systems actually function as intended since the consumption of human flesh is illegal.

              This is sort of my point, though. The idea that veganism is a personal responsibility narriative only works if you assume that farming doesn't rise to a sufficiently high leval of moral repugnance. Otherwise we'd all say "fuck the practicalities, there's no way I'm partaking in that", especially when in this case partaking is something as visceral as eating flesh or other animal products. The whole point of videos like the one in the OP is that for many people if they were truly confronted with the realities of livestock farming, it would rise to that level of repugnance.

    • Balkinbalkans [he/him]
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 years ago

      Even if you don't buy into the compassion toward animals argument or the pollution argument, you could always do it for the purely selfish reasons: Go vegan and lower your chances of stuff like colon cancer and heart disease.

      Don't let the suffering machines of capitalism and meat clog your arteries.

    • LaBellaLotta [any]
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 years ago

      Boy this is a bullshit take that’s extremely ignorant of the actual logistical Differences between animal agriculture and crop agriculture. Why do you think that historically the food of the poorest peoples use very minimal meat and dairy? These are luxury products that when scaled up do incredible harm to the environment and require massive use of resources that could otherwise be used for humanity. Look into how much fucking water goes into beef and dairy dude. Yeah individual consumer choices aren’t activism I don’t think anyone’s deluding themselves about that but 1. The proletarian diet has historically been 90% plant based a la southern Italy, India, SE Asia, etc, and 2. If you actually give a shit about the impending climate apocalypse then the questions of what we eat and how it is produced are of the utmost importance to consider. If calling it a bourgeoisie affectation makes you feel better about Not making a relatively easy lifestyle choice that’s better for you and everyone around you then go ahead but educate yourself before acting like eating a vegan diet isn’t the single easiest, cheapest, and most effective ways to reduce your individual carbon footprint. And don’t fucking act like it’s either or, all us vegans are perfectly capable of political organizing AND trying to convince people to go vegan simultaneously, i do one or the other every fucking day. Yeah the problem is capitalism we all fucking agree but just because we’re swimming in bullshit personal responsibility narratives that aren’t true like recycling or electric cars or whatever doesn’t mean you can’t actually take small steps in your personal life to build towards a better world for everyone. It’s not about changing capitalism we all know that the meat and dairy industry will get propped up. but I challenge you to imagine a world where we can continue to consume the resources necessary for everyone to consume meat and dairy And we aren’t continually careening towards a climate apocalypse. EATING MEAT AND DAIRY IN EXCESS HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN A BOURGEOISIE AFFECTATION. THIS IS BECAUSE RAISING LIVESTOCK IS MORE RESOURCE INTENSIVE THAN GROWING CROPS. CATTLE ARE A HUGE SOURCE OF METHANE WHICH IS A WAY MORE POTENT GREENHOUSE GAS THAN C02. IF WE DESTROY CAPITALISM THESE PROBLEMS DO NOT JUST GO AWAY. and lucky for us we have to simultaneously destroy capitalism and avert climate crisis so stop being a dickhead uninformed contrarian and giving yourself a pass for not taking a small modicum of responsibility for helping out with the latter problem by just learning how to cook rice and beans like a real fucking prole.

                  • D61 [any]
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Nitpicks from somebody who lives on a small farm.

                    "... most male cows are killed after just a couple years of life..."

                    Slaughter weight for cattle is about 12 months for conventional production and might be something like 1.5 to 2 years on a hippy dippy pasture operation, regardless of gender. The longer you keep a cow the more the feed costs add up. And folks who eat meat will complain that the meat is too tough and/or isn't fatty enough.

                    "Efficiently producing dairy requires constantly impregnating cows..."

                    You don't need to keep impregnating a cow to have it give milk. (Think about the human who are considered "weird" for breast feeding their child for more than a few years.) A lactating cow will continue to lactate for as long as something is draining the milk from their udders and they are kept reasonably healthy. Breed a cow once, keep it healthy, milk it every day and you can have milk for years. Dairy farms, the actual people working the cows, take the brunt of the dairy industry crash and can be pushed to keep breeding their milking herds to have extra income by selling bulls for breeding/meat and extra cows as replacements/meat.

                    I think a better term to use is "profitability" not "efficiency". Not letting bull calves stay with their mothers who are being milked in a diary is an economic decision not an efficiency decision. Because feeding bull calves has a cost to the farmer and falling milk prices means every ounce of milk produced needs to be sold to cover expenses of running a dairy farm. Using Jersey cows selectively bred to give several gallons of milk a day instead of a Dexter that typically gives a gallon or less per milking is an economic decision, not an efficiency decision.

                      • D61 [any]
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        Yeah, I may not have read too closely when you mentioned the time period to butcher weight.

                        Well, I mean, I've been living on a farm with a dozen cows that my wife has been managing and selling the raw milk from for about 5 years now. From what I've seen from watching her work, the claim that any attempt to get milk from a cow means that they have to be constantly bred doesn't seem to pan out. Maybe we're just talking past each other while focusing on different management practices though.

                        I'm not a fan of the "profit" framing regarding selling bull calves from dairy operations. From what I'm aware of, dairy farms don't get to set their sale price and are stuck taking whatever prices the bottling plant is willing to offer (knowing that the farmer can't afford to withhold and there is no where else to sell too). So when I see the price of milk increase in grocery stores and read about the price of milk falling, I know that its the farmer who's having to take a cut in income. Selling bull calves is just a way to try to close the gap. Like, nobody here would view a person working two jobs to try to keep up with bills as "increasing their profit" from working, right?

                        Dairy as an inefficient way making food. I'm curious to hear what you have to say about that (honestly). From where I stand, cows can graze areas that absolutely cannot be used to grow crops and cows turn things that we cannot eat into something that we can. So that seems a decent way to make food.

                          • D61 [any]
                            ·
                            4 years ago

                            Most cattle are fed crops? You mean right before slaughter right? You don't think that a cow is being fed grain for its entire life before going to butcher do you?

                              • D61 [any]
                                ·
                                4 years ago

                                And cows are fed all sorts of garbage. Its all done because of money. Give dairy cows a few pounds of expired candy and the lactose in their milk for the day increases making it sweeter. Give meat cattle a majority grain diet for the last few months of their lives and there will be more fat in their meat, it also gives them stomach ulcers. Probably why they can't have a straight grain diet for more than a few months, as it would affect the health of the animal to the point that it would lower the weight of the animal before processing, costing somebody money.

                                That static 70% statistic looks bad, but like, once a crop is finished growing it starts to rot unless processed into something that has a shelf life.

                                So if I can grow a plot of feed corn, twice a year to supplementally feed to an animal that gets most of its food from just browsing grass and other greenery, that I won't turn into food for 1.5 to 2 years. That seems like a pretty efficient way of storing food calories. Additionally cattle/sheep/goats mow the grasslands down, transport seeds around the areas they graze, fertilize as they move, and their hooves disturb the soil to help dropped seeds make better soil contact. And chickens can lay eggs, increasing their usefulness as a source of food.

                                I mean, a can of corn on a shelf stops being useful until its turned back into calories, right.

                                I could argue that the 70% statistic means that the entire world's population is being fed from the other 30% of crops grown directly for human consumption. Which doesn't include the % of that 30% that gets trashed before being consumed.

                                And pastures' being "planted" usually just means seed being spread. Not really that big of a deal. Seed doesn't need to be spread after the grass is established.

                                  • D61 [any]
                                    ·
                                    4 years ago

                                    I'm of the mind that the clearing of the Amazon for cattle is less driven by trying to feed people and more by capitalism.

                                    Food storage is always going to inefficient if your goal is about maximizing energy economy throughout the system. If you're just trying to feed yourself and the people around you, the metric for a successful system is about getting calories into people so that they can at a minimum, survive.

                                    I agree, killing animals is sad and unpleasant. Its disturbing when we have to put down an old sickly pet, its disturbing when a hawk kills a rabbit for food, and I find it really rough to kill an animal with my own hands. We can choose to wall ourselves off from nature and hope for the best or try to live within it as humanely as possible. But living within this system kinda means getting your hands dirty.